This rule is issued under Marketing Agreement No. 148 and Order No. 932, both as amended (7 CFR part 932), regulating the handling of olives grown in California, hereinafter referred to as the “order.” The order is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.”

The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive Orders 12866, 13175, and 13563.

This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. Under the marketing order now in effect, California olive handlers are subject to assessments. Funds to administer the order are derived from such assessments. It is intended that the assessment rate as issued herein will be applicable to all assessable olives beginning on January 1, 2014, and continue until amended, suspended, or terminated.

The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with USDA a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. Such handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing, USDA would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review USDA's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling.

This rule decreases the assessment rate established for the Committee for the 2014 and subsequent fiscal years from $21.16 to $15.21 per ton of assessable olives.

The California olive marketing order provides authority for the Committee, with the approval of USDA, to formulate an annual budget of expenses and collect assessments from handlers to administer the program. The members of the Committee are producers and handlers of California olives. They are familiar with the Committee's needs and with the costs for goods and services in their local area, and are thus in a position to formulate an appropriate budget and assessment rate. The assessment rate is formulated and discussed in a public meeting. Thus, all directly affected persons have an opportunity to participate and provide input.

For the 2013 and subsequent fiscal years, the Committee recommended, and USDA approved, an assessment rate of $21.16 per ton of assessable olives that would continue in effect from fiscal year to fiscal year unless modified, suspended, or terminated by USDA upon recommendation and information submitted by the Committee or other information available to USDA.

The Committee met on December 9, 2013, and unanimously recommended 2014 fiscal year expenditures of $1,262,460 and an assessment rate of $15.21 per ton of assessable olives. In comparison, last year's budgeted expenditures were $1,289,198. The assessment rate of $15.21 is $5.95 lower than the rate currently in effect. The Committee recommended the lower assessment rate because the 2013-14 assessable olive receipts as reported by the California Agricultural Statistics Service (CASS) are 79,495 tons, compared to 90,790 tons in 2012-13. Olives are an alternate-bearing crop, where crop size alternates between small and large crops, resulting in a higher 2012-13 volume crop and a lower 2013-14 volume crop. The lower assessment rate is possible due to a decrease in the overall budget and utilization of part of the reserve.

The major expenditures recommended by the Committee for the 2014 fiscal year include $346,500 for General Administration; $565,600 for Marketing Programs; $37,800 for Inspection Equipment Development; and $312,560 for Research Programs. Budgeted expenses for these items in 2013 were $333,800, $637,380, $105,000, and $213,018, respectively.

The assessment rate recommended by the Committee is based upon the actual revenue necessary to meet anticipated 2014 fiscal year expenses, given the actual olive tonnage received by handlers during the 2013-14 crop year, and taking into consideration the potential tonnage diverted by handlers into exempt uses. Actual assessable tonnage for the 2014 fiscal year is expected to be lower than the 2013-14 crop receipts of 79,495 tons reported by CASS because some olives may be diverted by handlers to uses that are exempt from marketing order requirements. Income derived from handler assessments and carryover reserve will be adequate to cover budgeted expenses. Funds in the reserve will be kept within the maximum amount of one fiscal year's expenses permitted by the order.

The assessment rate established in this rule will continue in effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated by USDA based upon a recommendation and information submitted by the Committee or upon other available information.

Although this assessment rate is effective for an indefinite period, the Committee will continue to meet prior to or during each fiscal year to recommend a budget of expenses and consider recommendations for modification of the assessment rate. The dates and times of Committee meetings are available from the Committee or USDA. Committee meetings are open to the public and interested persons may express their views at these meetings. USDA will evaluate Committee recommendations and other available information to determine whether modification of the assessment rate is needed. Further rulemaking will be undertaken as necessary. The Committee's 2014 budget and those for subsequent fiscal years will be reviewed and, as appropriate, approved by USDA.

Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has considered the economic impact of this action on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this initial regulatory flexibility analysis.

The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and the rules issued thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf.

There are approximately 1,000 producers of California olives in the production area and two handlers subject to regulation under the marketing order. Small agricultural producers are defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA) as those having annual receipts of less than $750,000 and small agricultural service firms are defined as those whose annual receipts are less than $7,000,000. (13 CFR 121.201)

Based upon information from the industry and CASS, the average grower price for 2013 was approximately $1,057.56 per ton of assessable olives and total grower deliveries were 79,495 tons. Based on production, producer prices, and the total number of California olive producers, the average annual producer revenue is less than $750,000. Thus, the majority of olive producers may be classified as small entities. Neither of the handlers may be classified as small entities.

This rule decreases the assessment rate established for the Committee and collected from handlers for the 2014 and subsequent fiscal years from $21.16 to $15.21 per ton of assessable olives, a decrease of $5.95. The Committee unanimously recommended 2014 expenditures of $1,262,460. The quantity of assessable California olives for the 2013-14 season is 79,495 tons. However, the quantity of olives actually assessed is expected to be slightly lower because some of the tonnage may be diverted by handlers to exempt outlets on which assessments are not paid. Income derived from the assessment rate of $15.21 combined with carryover reserve should provide an assessment income adequate to meet this year's expenses.

The major expenditures recommended by the Committee for the 2014 year includes $346,500 for General Administration; $565,600 for Marketing Programs; $37,800 for Inspection Equipment Development; and $312,560 for Research Programs. Budgeted expenses for these items in 2013 were $333,800, $637,380, $105,000, and $213,018, respectively.

The decrease in the assessment rate is possible due to a decrease in the overall budget and utilization of part of the reserve. Funds in the reserve will be kept within the maximum amount of one fiscal year's expenses permitted by the order.

The Committee reviewed and unanimously recommended 2014 fiscal year expenditures of $1,262,460, which included decreases in Marketing Programs and Inspection Equipment Development, and an increase in Research Programs and General Administration.

Prior to arriving at this budget, the Committee considered information from various sources, such as the Executive Subcommittee, Marketing Subcommittee, Inspection Subcommittee, and the Research Subcommittee. Alternative expenditure levels were discussed by these groups based upon the relative value of various projects to the olive industry. The assessment rate of $15.21 per ton of assessable olives was derived by considering anticipated expenses, the volume of assessable olives, potentially exempt olives, and other pertinent factors.

A review of historical information and preliminary information indicates that the grower price for the 2013 fiscal year was approximately $1,150.17 per ton for canning fruit, and $384.56 per ton for limited-use sizes. Approximately 87.9 percent of the olive crop were canning fruit sizes and 12.1 percent were limited use sizes. Grower revenue on 79,495 total tons of canning and limited-use sizes would be $84,070,570, given the current grower prices for those sizes. Therefore, the estimated assessment revenue for the 2014 fiscal year, as a percentage of total grower revenue, is expected to be approximately 1.4 percent.

This action decreases the assessment obligation imposed on handlers. Assessments are applied uniformly on all handlers, and some of the costs may be passed on to producers. However, decreasing the assessment rate reduces the burden on handlers, and may reduce the burden on producers. In addition, the Committee's meeting was widely publicized throughout the California olive industry and all interested persons were invited to attend the meeting and participate in Committee deliberations on all issues. Like all Committee meetings, the December 9, 2013, meeting was a public meeting and all entities, both large and small, were able to express views on this issue. Finally, interested persons are invited to submit comments on this interim rule, including the regulatory and informational impacts of this action on small businesses.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the order's information collection requirements have been previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and assigned OMB No. 0581-0178, Generic Vegetable Crops. No changes in those requirements as a result of this action are necessary. Should any changes become necessary, they would be submitted to OMB for approval.

This action imposes no additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large California olive handlers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies.

AMS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote the use of the internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.

USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap or conflict with this rule.

A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at: http://www.ams.usda.gov/MarketingOrdersSmallBusinessGuide. Any questions about the compliance guide should be sent to Jeffrey Smutny at the previously mentioned address in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

After consideration of all relevant material presented, including the information and recommendation submitted by the Committee, and other available information, it is hereby found that this rule, as hereinafter set forth, will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, it is also found and determined upon good cause that it is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest to give preliminary notice prior to putting this rule into effect, and that good cause exists for not postponing the effective date of this rule until 30 days after publication in the Federal Register because: (1) The 2014 fiscal year began on January 1, 2014, and the marketing order requires that the rate of assessment for each fiscal year apply to all assessable olives handled during such fiscal year; (2) this action decreases the assessment rate for assessable olives beginning with the 2014 fiscal year; (3) handlers are aware of this action which was unanimously recommended by the Committee at a public meeting; and, (4) this interim rule provides a 60-day comment period, and all comments timely received will be considered prior to finalization of this rule.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 932 is amended as follows:

The BNSF Railway Company requested a temporary deviation from the operating schedule on the the Galveston Causeway Railroad Vertical Lift Bridge across the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, mile 357.2 west of Harvey Locks, at Galveston, Galveston County, Texas.

The bridge has a vertical clearance of 8.0 feet above mean high water, elevation 3.0 feet NAVD88, in the closed-to-navigation position and 73 feet above mean high water in the open-to-navigation position. In accordance with 33 CFR 117.5, the draw shall open on signal for the passage of vessels.

This temporary deviation allows the vertical lift bridge to remain closed to navigation from 7 a.m. through 5 p.m., March 24 through March 28, 2014. The bridge will operate normally at all other times. During this deviation, the bridge owner will complete periodic maintenance requirements and grease all operating cables of the bridge.

Navigation at the site of the bridge consists mainly of tows with barges and some recreational pleasure craft. Based on known waterway users, as well as coordination with those waterway users, it has been determined that this closure will not have a significant effect on these vessels. No alternate routes are available.

In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35, the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation.

This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

The Greater New Orleans Expressway Commission requested a temporary deviation from the published regulation for the Greater New Orleans Expressway Commission Causeway bascule bridge across Lake Pontchartrain. The deviation allows the draws of the north bascule span to remain closed to navigation for six consecutive weeks from 5:30 a.m. on Monday March 24, 2014 through 7 p.m. on Friday, May 2, 2014 to facilitate the replacement of electrical components of the bridge.

Presently, in accordance with 33 CFR 117.467(b), the draw of the Greater New Orleans Expressway Commission Causeway bascule bridge shall open on signal if at least three hours notice is given; except that the draw need not be open for the passage of vessels Monday through Fridays except Federal holidays, from 5:30 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. and 3 p.m. to 7 p.m.. The draw will open on signal for any vessel in distress or vessel waiting immediately following the closures listed above.

The bascule span provides a vertical clearance of 42.6 feet above mean high water, elevation 2.6 feet NGVD in the closed-to-navigation position, and unlimited clearance in the open-to-navigation position. During the closure period, the bridge will not be able to open for vessels to transit through the bascule spans of the bridge. In case of an emergency, the bridge owner will be able to hand crank the draws of the bridge to the open-to-navigation position. As an alternate route, the south channel fixed spans of the bridge provide a vertical clearance of 50 feet above mean high water. Navigation on the waterway consists of small tugs with tows, fishing vessels, sailing vessels, and other recreational craft.

In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35, the draw bridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

On February 11, 2013, VA published in the Federal Register (78 FR 9589) an interim final rule promulgating 38 CFR 1.483 and 1.515, regulations to implement certain provisions of 38 U.S.C. 5701 and 7332. The interim final rule authorized VA to disclose certain types of information about veterans to PDMPs. The types of information that VA is authorized to disclose to PDMPs include demographic information of veterans and dependents of veterans who are prescribed a controlled substance, information about the prescribed controlled substances, and prescriber information. Interested persons were invited to submit comments on or before April 12, 2013, and we received 2 comments. Both comments expressed support for the interim final rule and do not recommend any changes to the rule. One commenter suggested that VA focus on the states with a high veteran population and work with the Office of National Drug Control Policy. We appreciate the commenter's suggestion. VA will take this suggestion into consideration. Based on the rationale set forth in the interim final rule, we adopt the interim final rule as a final rule without change.

Title 38 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as revised by this final rulemaking, represents VA's implementation of its legal authority on this subject. Other than future amendments to this regulation or governing statutes, no contrary guidance or procedures are authorized. All existing or subsequent VA guidance must be read to conform with this rulemaking if possible or, if not possible, such guidance is superseded by this rulemaking.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that agencies prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year. This final rule will have no such effect on State, local, and tribal governments, or on the private sector.

This final rule contains no provisions constituting a collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521).

The Secretary hereby certifies that this regulatory action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-12. This regulatory action affects only individuals and will not affect any small entities. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), this rulemaking is exempt from the initial and final flexibility analysis requirements of sections 603 and 604.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) defines a “significant regulatory action,” which requires review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), as “any regulatory action that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in this Executive Order.”

The economic, interagency, budgetary, legal, and policy implications of this regulatory action have been examined, and it has been determined not to be a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. VA's impact analysis can be found as a supporting document at http://www.regulations.gov, usually within 48 hours after the rulemaking document is published. Additionally, a copy of the rulemaking and its impact analysis are available on VA's Web site at http://www1.va.gov/orpm/, by following the link for “VA Regulations Published.”

The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance numbers and titles for this rule are 64.012 Veterans Prescription Service and 64.019 Veterans Rehabilitation—Alcohol and Drug Dependence.

The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or designee, approved this document and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Jose D. Riojas, Chief of Staff, Department of Veteran Affairs, approved this document on February 27, 2014, for publication.

Accordingly, the interim final rule amending 38 CFR part 1, which was published on February 11, 2013, at 78 FR 9589, is adopted as a final rule without change.

The Postal Service published a document (FR Doc. 2014-04784) in the Federal Register of March 5, 2014, (79 FR 12390) revising the service standards for Standard Mail that is eligible for DSCF rates. In this document, the “Periodicals” row in Table 5 of Appendix A to part 121, and the “Periodicals” and “Package Services” rows in Table 6 of Appendix A to part 121, were inadvertently amended to contain incorrect information. This document corrects the information in those Tables.

In rule FR Doc. 2014-04784 published on March 5, 2014, (79 FR 12390) make the following correction. At the top of page 12394, correct Tables 5 and 6 to read as follows:

Throughout this document “we,” “us,” or “our” refer to EPA. This section provides additional information by addressing the following:

EPA is approving revisions into the SIP to include amendments to the Iowa air quality rules as they apply to Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) of Air Quality.

The rules are amended to correspond with the Federal regulation for implementation of the PM 2.5 PSD program as identified in 40 CFR 52.21.

The following definitions are revised to match the Federal regulation: Baseline area; baseline date; enforceable permit condition; Federally enforceable; regulated New Source Review (NSR) pollutant, and significant.

Revisions adopted by reference include ambient air increments that include thresholds for PM 2.5 , PSD exemptions to incorporate PM 2.5 , source impact analysis requirements to include PM 2.5 , and requirements for sources that impact Federal Class I areas to include PM 2.5 . Source obligation provisions are revised to match current Federal PSD regulations. This revision also clarifies the conditions whereby source owners and operators must keep records and the specific records that must be kept. For the purposes of record keeping, the Federal definition of “reasonable possibility” has been added. A rule has been added to establish provisions for rescinding a PSD permit and is commensurate with the Federal provisions.

This action is also consistent with the state's request to not include the SIP provisions relating to Significant Impact Levels and Significant Monitoring Concentrations. On January 22, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia vacated and remanded the provisions at 40 CFR 51.166(k)(2) and 52.21(k)(2) concerning implementation of the PM 2.5 SILs and vacated the provisions at 40 CFR 51.166(i)(5)(i)(c) and 52.21(i)(5)(i)(c) (adding the PM 2.5 SMC) that were promulgated as part of the October 20, 2010 rule, “Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) for Particulate Matter less than 2.5 Micrometers (PM 2.5 )—Increments, Significant Impact Levels and Significant Monitoring Concentrations,” 75 FR 64864.

The state submittal has met the public notice requirements for SIP submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The submittal also satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. The revision meets the substantive SIP requirements of the CAA, including section 110 and implementing regulations.

EPA is approving the state's request to revise the SIP to include amendments to the Iowa air quality rules as they apply to PSD of Air Quality. The rule is amended to correspond with the final Federal regulation necessary for PM 2.5 implementation for the PSD program. This revision also revises source obligation provisions as they apply to recordkeeping, and provides a mechanism to allow industry to request rescission of a PSD permit, both of which will match federal regulations. Per the state's July 23, 2013 request, EPA is not including provisions of the 2010 PM 2.5 PSD—Increments, SILs and SMCs rule (75 FR 64865, October 20, 2010) relating to SILs and SMCs that were affected by the January 22, 2013 U.S. Court of Appeals decision into SIP.

We are processing this action as a direct final action because the revisions make routine changes to the existing rules which are noncontroversial. Therefore, we do not anticipate any adverse comments. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on part of this rule and if that part can be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those parts of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

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 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, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it 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 May 13, 2014. 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. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules section of today's Federal Register , rather than file an immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

Throughout this document, “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to EPA.

Under section 109 of the CAA, EPA establishes national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS or “standards”) for certain pervasive air pollutants (referred to as “criteria pollutants”) and conducts periodic reviews of the NAAQS to determine whether they should be revised or whether new NAAQS should be established.

On July 18, 1997, EPA revised the NAAQS for particulate matter to add new standards for fine particles, using PM 2.5 (particles less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers in diameter) as the indicator for the pollutant. EPA established primary and secondary  1 annual and 24-hour standards for PM 2.5 (62 FR 38652). The annual standard was set at 15.0 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m 3 ), based on a 3-year average of annual mean PM 2.5 concentrations, and the 24-hour standard was set at 65 μg/m 3 , based on the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour PM 2.5 concentrations at each population-oriented monitor within an area.

On October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61144), EPA revised the level of the 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS to 35 μg/m 3 , based on a 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations. EPA also retained the 1997 annual PM 2.5 standard at 15.0 μg/m 3 based on a 3-year average of annual mean PM 2.5 concentrations, but with tighter constraints on the spatial averaging criteria.

Effective December 14, 2009, EPA established the initial air quality designations for most areas in the United States for the 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS. See 74 FR 58688 (November 13, 2009). Among the various areas designated in 2009, EPA designated the San Francisco Bay Area and the Chico area in California as nonattainment for the 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS. 2 3 The boundaries for these areas are described in 40 CFR 81.305.

Section 172(c)(3) of the CAA requires a state with an area designated as nonattainment to submit for EPA approval a comprehensive, accurate, and current inventory of actual emissions for the nonattainment area. EPA's requirements for an emissions inventory for the PM 2.5 NAAQS are set forth in 40 CFR 51.1008. 4 5 This direct final approval is limited to the emissions inventories for direct PM 2.5 and PM 2.5 precursors submitted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) for the San Francisco Bay Area and Chico nonattainment areas as required under section 172(c)(3) of the CAA as applicable to the 2006 PM 2.5 24-hour NAAQS.

On January 9, 2013 (78 FR 1760), EPA finalized a determination that the San Francisco Bay Area nonattainment area had attained the 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS. On September 10, 2013 (78 FR 55225), EPA finalized a determination that the Chico nonattainment area had also attained the 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS. These determinations of attainment were based upon complete, quality-assured, and certified ambient air monitoring data showing that each area had monitored attainment of the 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS based on the most-recent three years of monitoring data. Based on these determinations, the requirements for each 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 PM 2.5 NAAQS. The emissions inventory submittal requirement in CAA section 172(c)(3) is not suspended by the determination of attainment, and the State has submitted the Chico and San Francisco Bay Area inventories to address the section 172(c)(3) requirement.

Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(l) of the Act require states to provide reasonable notice and public hearing prior to adoption of SIP revisions. Section 110(k)(1)(B) requires EPA to determine whether a SIP submittal is complete within 60 days of receipt. Any plan that we have not affirmatively determined to be complete or incomplete will become complete six months after the day of submittal by operation of law. A finding of completeness does not approve the submittal as part of the SIP nor does it indicate that the submittal is approvable. It does start a 12-month clock for EPA to act on the SIP submittal. See CAA section 110(k)(2).

In this action, we are approving, as a revision to the California SIP, CARB's January 14, 2013 submittal of the 2010 PM 2.5 Emissions Inventory for the San Francisco Bay Area (Bay Area emissions inventory). 6 CARB's submittal to EPA documents the public review process followed by San Francisco Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) and CARB in adopting the Bay Area emissions inventory prior to submittal to EPA as a revision to the SIP. The documentation provides evidence that reasonable notice of a public hearing was provided to the public and that a public hearing was conducted prior to adoption. CARB's submittal documents the adoption of the Bay Area emissions inventory by the BAAQMD Board of Directors on November 7, 2012. The submittal also documents CARB's December 6, 2012 Board resolution approving the Bay Area emissions inventory. 7 On January 14, 2013, CARB submitted the Bay Area emissions inventory to EPA for approval as a revision to the California SIP.

CARB's January 14, 2013 submittal of the Bay Area emissions inventory became complete by operation of law on July 14, 2013.

Based on the documentation included in CARB's submittal, we find that the submittal of the Bay Area emissions inventory, as a SIP revision, satisfies the procedural requirements of sections 110(l) of the Act for revising SIPs. For further details, please see EPA's December 20, 2013 Technical Support Document (TSD) for the Bay Area emissions inventory.

In this action, we are also approving, as a revision to the California SIP, CARB's November 15, 2012 submittal of a 2011 PM 2.5 emissions inventory for the Chico PM 2.5 nonattainment area (Chico emissions inventory). 8 CARB's submittal documents the public review process followed by Butte County Air Quality Management District (BCAQMD) and CARB in adopting the Chico emissions inventory prior to submittal to EPA. The documentation provides evidence that reasonable notice of a public hearing was provided to the public and that a public hearing was conducted prior to adoption. CARB's submittal documents the adoption of the emissions inventory by the BCAQMD Board of Directors. On September 27, 2012, the BCAQMD Board of Directors approved the emissions inventory and directed BCAQMD staff to forward the Chico emissions inventory to CARB, the Governor of California's designee for SIP matters. 9 CARB's submittal also documents its October 18, 2012 Board resolution regarding the Chico emissions inventory. 10

CARB's November 15, 2012 submittal of the Chico emissions inventory became complete by operation of law on May 15, 2013.

Based on the documentation included in CARB's submittal, we find that the submittal of the Chico emissions inventory as a SIP revision satisfies the procedural requirements of sections 110(l) of the Act for revising SIPs. For further details, please see EPA's December 20, 2013 TSD for the Chico emissions inventory.

Section 172(c)(3) of the CAA requires states to submit a comprehensive, accurate, and current inventory of actual emissions for each nonattainment area. EPA's requirements for an emissions inventory for the PM 2.5 NAAQS are set forth in 40 CFR 51.1008. For the PM 2.5 NAAQS, the pollutants to be inventoried are PM 2.5 , VOC, NO X , SO 2 , and NH 3 . 11

The Bay Area emissions inventory provides a 2010 inventory in tons per day (tpd) winter-time emissions estimates for PM 2.5 and PM 2.5 precursors (i.e., nitrogen oxides (NO X ), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), 12 ammonia (NH 3 ), and sulfur dioxide (SO 2 )). Monitoring data for the San Francisco Bay Area nonattainment area indicates that high PM 2.5 concentrations occur primarily during the winter months; therefore, the Bay Area emissions inventory is a winter-season inventory. 13 The source categories include stationary sources, area sources, on-road mobile sources and off-road mobile sources. A summary of the Bay Area emissions inventory is provided in Table 1 below, and the detailed Bay Area emissions inventory is found in Attachment 1 of CARB's submittal. CARB received no public comments on this submittal.

The Bay Area emissions inventory includes emissions estimates from stationary sources, area sources, on-road mobile sources, and off-road mobile sources. The methodologies used to derive the 2010 inventory for PM 2.5 are as follows:  15

• The stationary source emissions inventory is based on 2010 data of actual emissions reported by all permitted facilities.

• Area-wide source emissions were calculated based on reported data for fuel usage, product sales, population, employment data, and other parameters covering a wide range of activities.

• The BAAQMD used residential 2005-2006 wood burning surveys and mass balance calculations to estimate emissions from fireplaces and woodstoves. 16

• Commercial cooking did not include condensable emissions for purposes of methodological consistency, since methods to measure condensable emissions from other sources are not available.

• The on-road emissions inventory, which consists of mobile sources such as trucks, automobiles, buses, and motorcycles, was prepared by CARB using EMFAC2011, 17 an EPA-approved CARB model for on-road motor vehicle emissions.

• The off-road mobile source category includes aircraft, trains and boats, and off-road vehicles and equipment used for construction, farming, commercial, industrial, and recreational activities. 18 Off-road emissions were estimated by CARB using category-specific methods and models, and OFFROAD2007. 19

• Ship emissions were based on actual data where possible. Commercial boat emissions were calculated based on data collected from CARB's 2004 Statewide Commercial Harbor Craft Survey. Aircraft emissions are based on actual 2010 activity data.

• Paved road emissions were estimated by CARB, based on their 2011 guidance and EPA's AP-42, Fifth Edition, Volume 1, Chapter 13.2.1, Final Section. 20

As noted above, high PM 2.5 concentrations in the San Francisco Bay Area nonattainment area occur primarily during the winter months and, therefore, the BAAQMD submitted a winter season inventory. The high winter concentrations are mainly due to meteorological factors, but also are affected by increased residential wood burning during the winter. In addition, cool weather promotes the formation of ammonium nitrate. 21 Residential wood burning and diesel vehicles comprise about two thirds of the directly emitted PM 2.5 emissions. On-road motor vehicles make up the largest source of NO X and VOC emissions.

EPA has reviewed the results, procedures, and methodologies for the Bay Area emissions inventory. The BAAQMD used standard procedures to develop its emissions inventory. The BAAQMD appropriately used seasonal emissions inventories. After reviewing the CARB submittal of the Bay Area emissions inventory and supporting documentation, EPA finds the Bay Area emissions inventory meets the requirements of the CAA and EPA guidance and, therefore, we are approving it.

The SIP revision submitted by CARB on November 15, 2012 for the Chico nonattainment area provides a 2011 winter-time emissions inventory with emissions estimates in tpd for PM 2.5 and PM 2.5 precursors (i.e., NO X , VOCs, 22 NH 3, and SO 2 ). Monitoring data for the Chico nonattainment area indicates that high PM 2.5 concentrations occur primarily during the winter months; therefore, the submitted inventory is a winter-season inventory. 23 The source categories include stationary sources, area sources, on-road mobile sources, and off-road mobile sources. A summary of the inventory is provided in Table 2 below, and a detailed inventory is found in Appendix D of CARB's submittal. CARB received no public comments on this submittal.

For the Chico nonattainment area, the BCAQMD used a base year of 2005, which was the latest completed comprehensive inventory available. 26 This base year inventory was then “grown and controlled”  27 for 2011. For the PM 2.5 NAAQS, the pollutants to be inventoried are PM 2.5 , VOC, NO X , SO 2, and NH 3 . 28 The inventory includes emissions estimates from stationary sources, area sources, on-road mobile sources, and off-road mobile sources. The submittal also includes PM 2.5 emissions in BCAQMD's 2011 Emissions Reduction Credit (ERC) register and Community Bank reserve. These potential future emissions are not included in the 2011 winter-time PM 2.5 emissions inventory for Chico, but BCAQMD recognizes their potential to be emitted in the future if authorized to meet New Source Review requirements.

The stationary point source emissions inventory was developed from information the BCAQMD has on file for permitted facilities. The source categories include, but are not limited to, most fuel combustion, waste disposal, cleaning and surface coating, petroleum marketing and production, and industrial process facilities, as well as those subject to the federal Title V program. For this inventory, stationary sources also include auto body shops, dry cleaners, and gasoline stations. General area sources include solvent evaporation and other sources for which BCAQMD followed CARB's methodologies to calculate the emissions inventory estimates. 30 The BCAQMD developed the woodstove/fireplace emissions estimates using California housing data, Butte County Association of Governments' growth predictions, and CARB emissions factors to determine the potential reductions from BCAQMD Rule 207, Residential Wood Combustion.) 31

Mobile sources include on-road and off-road emissions. On-road mobile source emissions were estimated by CARB using the EMFAC2011model. Off-road emissions were estimated by CARB using category-specific methods and models, and OFFROAD2007. 32 Residential wood heating accounts for almost half of the winter directly emitted PM 2.5 emissions, and mobile sources are the largest contributors to NO X emissions.

EPA has reviewed the results, procedures, and methodologies for the submitted emissions inventory. The BCAQMD used standard procedures to develop its emissions inventory. The BCAQMD appropriately used seasonal emissions inventories. After reviewing the CARB submittal of the Chico emissions inventory and supporting documentation, EPA finds the emissions inventory meets the requirements of the CAA and EPA guidance and, therefore, we are approving it.

EPA is taking direct final action to approve the PM 2.5 and PM 2.5 precursor emissions inventories submitted by CARB on January 14, 2013 for the San Francisco Bay Area nonattainment area, and on November 15, 2012 for the Chico nonattainment area. EPA has determined that this action is consistent with sections 110 and 172(c)(3) of the CAA. EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a non-controversial revision and anticipates no adverse comments. However, in the Proposed Rules section of this Federal Register , we are simultaneously proposing approval of the same submitted emissions inventories. If we receive adverse comments by April 14, 2014, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register to notify the public that the direct final approval will not take effect, and we will address the comments in a subsequent final action based on the proposal. If we do not receive timely adverse comments, the direct final approval will be effective without further notice on May 13, 2014. This will incorporate these emissions inventories into the federally enforceable SIP.

Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this SIP revision, and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the revision, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the revision that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

Under the Clean Air Act, 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 Clean Air Act. 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 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 Clean Air Act; and

• does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this action does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the State, and EPA notes that it 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 Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by May 13, 2014. 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. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the Proposed Rules section of today's Federal Register , rather than file an immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

This action may affect you if you produce, distribute, or sell gasoline for use in the Atlanta area. The table below gives some examples of entities that may have to comply with the regulations. However, since these are only examples, you should examine carefully these and other existing regulations in 40 CFR part 80. If you have any questions, please call the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Based on the Atlanta metropolitan area's failure to achieve the 1-hour ozone standard according to a statutorily-prescribed deadline, the area was reclassified as a severe ozone nonattainment area and required to use RFG. However, as a result of pending legal proceedings, RFG has never been implemented in Atlanta, and Atlanta has not relied on emissions reductions from federal RFG in its EPA-approved ozone SIP. In the interim, the air quality in Atlanta has improved; due in part to various control strategies in place as well as vehicle fleet changes, and EPA has redesignated the area as in attainment with both the 1-hour and 1997 8-hour ozone standards. Atlanta is currently designated a marginal nonattainment area under the 2008 8-hour ozone standard. Although the Clean Air Act clearly imposes the obligation to use RFG on areas one year after they are reclassified as a severe nonattainment area, it is ambiguous as to when such RFG covered areas may discontinue use of RFG. The State has sought through a petition to EPA and associated litigation to avoid the implementation of the RFG program in Atlanta following classification of the area as a severe nonattainment area under the one-hour ozone standard. The RFG requirement has been stayed pending resolution of the litigation, and during the time that Atlanta was redesignated to attainment for the one-hour ozone standard. The State has an approved State Implementation Plan (SIP) that has not relied on RFG benefits and a SIP-approved fuel program that achieves all of the nitrogen oxides (NO X ), toxics, and 98.4% of the volatile organic compound (VOC) benefits provided by the RFG program. After considering a number of factors, including the benefits of using RFG rather than the SIP-approved low-RVP “Georgia gas,” EPA has interpreted the statutory provisions and concluded that Atlanta is not required to use RFG.

EPA has set National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for six principal pollutants, including ozone. After establishing a NAAQS, EPA, based on recommendations from the States, designates areas as either in attainment with the NAAQS, in nonattainment with the NAAQS, or as unclassifiable. The CAA (or Act) also specifies that ozone nonattainment areas are to be further classified at the time of designation as marginal, moderate, serious, severe or extreme, based on the severity of the air quality in the area. Section 110(a)(2) of the Act requires each State to adopt, and EPA to review and approve, a State Implementation Plan (SIP) that identifies how that State will attain and/or maintain each NAAQS, such as the ozone NAAQS. Specifically, SIPs must identify control measures and strategies that demonstrate how each area will attain and maintain the NAAQS. These plans are developed through a public process, formally adopted by the State, and submitted by the Governor's designee to EPA. The CAA requires EPA to review each plan and any plan revisions in a public process and to approve or disapprove them.

The contents of a typical SIP fall into several categories: (1) State-adopted control measures which consist of rules/regulations, source-specific requirements (e.g., orders and consent decrees) and other control obligations; (2) State-submitted comprehensive air quality plans, such as attainment plans, maintenance plans, and rate of progress plans, demonstrating how these state regulatory and source-specific controls, in conjunction with federal programs, will bring and/or keep air quality in compliance with federal air quality standards; (3) State-submitted “non-regulatory” requirements, such as emission inventories, small business compliance assistance programs; demonstrations of legal authority, monitoring networks, etc.; and (4) additional requirements promulgated by EPA (in the absence of a commensurate State provision) to satisfy a mandatory section 110 or part D (Clean Air Act) requirement.

The 1990 amendments to the CAA directed EPA to issue regulations that specify how gasoline can be “reformulated” so as to result in significant reductions in vehicle emissions of ozone-forming and toxic air pollutants relative to a 1990 baseline fuel, and to require the use of such reformulated gasoline in certain “covered areas.” In addition, some other areas with ozone levels exceeding the ozone NAAQS may opt-in to the federal RFG program, and several areas have done so.

The term “covered area” is defined in section 211(k)(10)(D) as follows:

The second sentence of section 211(k)(10)(D) identifies areas that become covered areas because they have been reclassified as a severe ozone nonattainment area under CAA section 181(b). These are called “bump-up” areas. Five areas were reclassified to severe for the 1-hour NAAQS: Baton Rouge, Atlanta, Sacramento, San Joaquin Valley, and Sacramento, San Joaquin Valley, and Washington, DC (which was already an opt-in area). They became mandatory RFG covered areas one year after their reclassification as a severe area. The areas that are RFG covered areas based on the bump-up provision were designated as ozone nonattainment areas by operation of law at the time of the 1990 CAA amendments, and their bump-up to severe occurred by operation of law based on EPA's determination under section 181(b) that the areas failed to attain the 1-hour ozone NAAQS by the applicable date. Thus, their reclassification to severe was not based on a determination that their air quality met the severe area ozone design value. Instead, reclassification was based on their failure to meet the applicable attainment date. The bump-up to severe has two effects—a later attainment date is set for the area, and a variety of additional control measures become mandatory for the area. The federal RFG program becomes a mandatory control measure in an area one year after the area is bumped up to a severe classification.

Today's rule follows from previous EPA action in replacing the 1-hour ozone standard with a more protective 8-hour ozone NAAQS. See 69 FR 23951 (April 30, 2004). 1 EPA has issued two rules that clarify the extent to which CAA obligations that existed under the 1-hour ozone standard continue in effect under the 8-hour NAAQS. These rules are the Phase 1 implementation rule, 69 FR 23951 (April 30, 2004), and the Phase 2 implementation rule. See 70 FR 71612 (November 29, 2005).

In the Phase 1 rule, EPA addressed two interrelated key issues regarding the transition from the 1-hour ozone NAAQS to the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. First, it identified the time at which the 1-hour ozone NAAQS would be revoked (i.e., no longer apply). Second, it identified the extent to which certain regulatory requirements related to 1-hour ozone NAAQS attainment status would apply after transition to the 8-hour NAAQS. On the first issue, EPA decided that the 1-hour ozone NAAQS would be revoked in full, including the associated designations and classifications, one year following the effective date of the designations for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. For most areas, which were designated effective June 15, 2004, that means the 1-hour ozone NAAQS and the related designation and classification no longer applied as of June 15, 2005. On the second issue, the approach, generally referred to as “anti-backsliding,” adopted in the Phase 1 rule established that all areas designated nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS and designated nonattainment for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS at the time of designation for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS (the “trigger date”) remain subject to mandatory control measures that applied by virtue of the area's classification for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. These control measures are called “applicable requirements,” and are primarily the control measures that areas were required to adopt and implement based on the area's 1-hour nonattainment classification. Thus, in the Phase 1 rule, EPA adopted an anti-backsliding approach and established a trigger date for determining which 1- hour ozone control “applicable requirements” continued to apply after revocation of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. RFG is not a SIP ”applicable requirement” addressed by the Phase I rule, so the rule did not resolve the extent to which RFG requirements related to 1-hour ozone classifications would apply after the transition to the 8-hour ozone standard.

In the Phase 2 Ozone Implementation Rule, EPA interpreted section 211(k)(10)(D) as requiring that the nine original mandatory RFG covered areas (those identified by reference to their 1980 population and their 1987-1989 ozone design value) remain covered areas, and thus are required to use RFG, at least until they are redesignated to attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA explained that the statute identifies these areas as covered areas by virtue of historical facts that are not altered by EPA's transition to the 8-hour ozone standard, and that they will continue to be “ozone nonattainment areas” until they are redesignated to attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Thus they will continue to meet the definition of covered area at least until they are redesignated to attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. See 70 FR 71612, 71685 (November 29, 2005).

In the Phase 2 rule EPA also identified two distinct types of areas that had been reclassified or “bumped-up” to severe for the 1-hour ozone standard prior to revocation of that standard: (1) Those that lost their classification as severe ozone nonattainment areas solely as a result of the revocation of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS and classification at a lower classification (e.g., subpart 1, marginal, moderate or serious) under the new 8-hour ozone NAAQS; and (2) those that lost their severe classification through redesignation to attainment for the 1-hour NAAQS prior to revocation of that standard. EPA explained that section 211(k)(10)(D) is ambiguous on the issue of whether and how long a bump-up area continues to be a covered area when it is no longer classified as severe. The text of the provision could be read to set the defining criteria as the occurrence of reclassification to severe, a historical fact that does not change based on subsequent changes in classification. It could also be read as identifying areas that are reclassified to severe, but as leaving unresolved what happens when they are no longer so classified. Given this ambiguity, EPA determined that it had the discretion to determine whether section 211(k)(10)(D) authorizes removal of a bump-up area from the RFG program in the two different situations when such a bump-up area is no longer classified as severe. EPA decided in the phase 2 rule that those bump-up areas that lost their severe status solely as a result of revocation of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS and classification at a lower classification under the 8-hour ozone standard would remain covered areas at least until they are redesignated to attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. In making this decision EPA relied on an antibacksliding approach similar to that relied upon in the Phase 1 rule. See 69 FR 23857. (April 30, 2004). 2 However, EPA did not address in the Phase 2 rule whether RFG would continue to be required in bump-up areas that lost their severe status as a result of redesignation to attainment for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS before revocation of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, and which are classified at a lower classification than severe under the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Atlanta was the only such area. EPA designated Atlanta as a marginal nonattainment area under the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, 70 FR 34660 (June 15, 2005), and redesignated Atlanta from nonattainment to attainment for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, prior to revocation of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. See 56 FR 56694 (November 6, 1991). EPA subsequently redesignated Atlanta to attainment for the 1997 8-hour standard. See 78 FR 72040 (December 2, 2013). Atlanta is currently designated marginal nonattainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

As explained above, 13 counties in the Atlanta 1-hour ozone nonattainment area became an RFG covered area when Atlanta was reclassified as a severe ozone nonattainment area on January 1, 2004. Atlanta was required under the statute to begin using RFG on January 1, 2005. In August 2004, Georgia petitioned EPA to waive the RFG requirement for Atlanta, based on “absurd results” (NOx impact leading to increased ozone). In September, 2004, EPA denied Georgia's petition on grounds that expected adverse impacts were related to ethanol in RFG. The State had not requested a waiver of the RFG oxygen content requirement, and EPA determined that it lacked authority to waive the entire RFG requirement in this situation. Georgia then filed two lawsuits related to RFG in Atlanta. First, Georgia alleged in U.S. District Court that EPA must conduct a conformity analysis prior to RFG taking effect in Atlanta. The court denied Georgia's motion for a preliminary injunction, but the State appealed this ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, and the District Court granted the State's request for a stay of the RFG requirement pending appeal. Second, the State challenged EPA's denial of its RFG waiver request in the 11th Circuit. While this litigation was ongoing, Atlanta was redesignated to attainment for the 1-hour ozone standard, on June 14, 2005, before that standard was revoked on June 15, 2005. At that time Atlanta was classified as marginal under the new 1997 8-hour ozone standard. All actions in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals were stayed, at the parties' request, to allow EPA and the State to consider the impact of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (revoking the RFG oxygen content requirement but also requiring a broader program for increasing use of renewable fuels throughout the U.S.) and Atlanta's redesignation to attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard prior to its revocation. The judicial stay of the RFG requirement in Atlanta remains in place during the stay of the litigation. As a result of these proceedings, RFG has never been implemented in Atlanta, and Atlanta has not relied on emissions reductions from federal RFG in its SIP.

In our proposed rulemaking of June 23, 2006 (71 FR 36042), EPA sought comment on two alternative proposals regarding reformulated gasoline requirements for Atlanta. In the time since we published the proposal, a number of factors have transpired which are taken into account in today's action. When Georgia first sought a waiver of the RFG program, the fuel used to meet the Georgia gas SIP requirements did not contain ethanol, but virtually all RFG was being blended with 10% ethanol. The renewable fuels program initiated by Congress in the 2005 Energy Policy Act, and enhanced in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, requires that transportation fuel contain volumes of renewable fuel, including ethanol, that are defined for each calendar year and increase over time to 36 billion gallons in 2022. As a result of implementing the RFS program, ethanol is now being blended into virtually all gasoline (RFG and conventional) throughout the US, including the Atlanta market. In addition, EPA also updated the modeling tools to incorporate the most up-to-date emission information into the release of Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES) model. This allowed EPA to run the MOVES model to estimate the difference in emissions between RFG and Georgia gas. More importantly, since the time that the proposal was published, the Atlanta area has been able to achieve attainment with the 1997 8-hour ozone standard without ever having implemented RFG.

At the time of the proposed rule, Atlanta was classified as marginal nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour NAAQS. On December 2, 2013 EPA reclassified Atlanta to attainment for the 1997 8-hour standard. However, Atlanta is currently classified as marginal nonattainment under the 2008 8-hour standard. Thus, the issue for resolution in today's rule is the same as at the time of proposal—the extent to which an area formerly classified as a severe nonattainment area under the 1-hour standard must continue to be an RFG covered area if it was reclassified to attainment before the 1-hour standard was revoked and is classified as less than severe under the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Under the first option for which EPA sought comment, Atlanta would be required to use federal reformulated gasoline (RFG) at least until it is redesignated to attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The anti-backsliding trigger date would be the same as that in the Phase 1 implementation rule—the effective date of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS designations. On that date Atlanta was classified as a severe area for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, and the requirement to use RFG was mandatory, starting January 1, 2005, based on that classification. The subsequent redesignation to attainment of the 1-hr ozone NAAQS would not change the continuing obligation to use RFG after the trigger date. Under the second option, which EPA is finalizing today, the State could request the removal of RFG, and EPA would grant such a request, upon a demonstration that removal would not result in loss of any RFG-related emission reductions relied upon in the State's Implementation Plan for ozone. The trigger date for Atlanta under this second option would be the date of revocation of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. The use of this trigger date would mean that if RFG was a mandatory obligation on that date, then the obligation would continue after revocation of the 1-hour NAAQS. If RFG was not a mandatory obligation on that date then it would not continue after the date of revocation. Hence the primary issue under this option would be whether RFG should be considered a mandatory obligation as of the trigger date. As noted above, section 211(k)(10)(D) of the Act is ambiguous on whether the obligation to use RFG would continue to apply as of this trigger date, since the prior redesignation to attainment for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS means the area was no longer classified as a severe area as of that date. The issue is not whether a requirement that applied on the trigger date should continue to apply after revocation, but whether this specific federal requirement would or would not apply on the trigger date. These options are described in more detail in Section III of this preamble.

The CAA, as amended in 1990, mandated certain requirements for the reformulated gasoline program. The Act specified that during 1995 through 1999 (Phase I RFG), for volatile organic compounds (VOC) and toxics, RFG must comply with the more stringent of either a set of formulas or an emission reductions performance standard, measured on a mass basis, equal to 15 percent reduction from baseline emissions. Baseline emissions were the emissions of 1990 model year vehicles operated on a specified baseline gasoline. The Act also mandated compositional specifications for RFG which included a 2.0 weight percent oxygen minimum and a 1.0 volume percent benzene maximum. For the year 2000 and beyond (Phase II RFG), the Act specified that RFG must comply with the more stringent of a set of formulas or VOC and toxic pollutant performance standards providing for a 25 percent reduction from baseline emissions. EPA adopted the RFG requirements in 40 CFR 80.40 through 80.70. The original Phase II emission reductions required specified percentage reductions of RFG relative to the 1990 statutory baseline, as noted below:  3

Since the RFG standards were implemented, there have been a number of important changes to gasoline controls. Perhaps the most significant of these was implementation of the Tier 2 gasoline sulfur standards. 65 FR 6698 (Feb. 10, 2000). In addition, in 2007 EPA adopted the Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSAT) rule. Beginning in 2011, the MSAT rule required refiners to meet a benzene content standard on all their gasoline, both reformulated and conventional, nationwide. 72 FR 8431 (February 26, 2007). In this rule EPA also removed the NO X performance requirements from the RFG program regulations. 72 FR 8498 (February 26, 2007); 40 CFR 80.41(e)(2). Finally, in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 Congress modified the requirements for RFG by removing the requirement that it contain oxygenate and replaced it with a mandate that gasoline nationwide contain increasing volumes of renewable fuels. The result of all these actions is that now the requirements for federal RFG and conventional gasoline (CG) with respect to NO X , toxics emissions performance and renewable fuel content are essentially the same.

Since Congress mandated the RFG program through the 1990 CAA Amendments, there have also been a number of important changes to vehicle emission standards. In 1993, EPA promulgated the enhanced evaporative emission standards which reduced the impact of changes in fuel volatility, or RVP, on evaporative emissions (i.e. VOCs including toxics). See 58 FR 16002 (March 24, 1993). This was followed in 2000 with Tier 2 vehicle standards which not only further reduced evaporative emissions, but also reduced exhaust emissions by an order of magnitude. See 65 FR 6698 (February 10, 2000). The result is that the percent reduction standards for RFG based on the response of 1990 technology vehicles to fuel changes compared to 1990 gasoline are not relevant to today's fleet of vehicles or those in the future. Furthermore, while fuels may still have a significant percentage impact on vehicle emissions in the future, the magnitude of the impact is much smaller than at the time the CAA was amended in 1990. As a result, the magnitude of the emissions reductions associated with the use of RFG is much smaller now than in the past.

Several regulatory requirements directly or indirectly limit the RVP level in reformulated and conventional gasoline supplied during late spring and summer, when ozone is of most concern. In 1989, EPA promulgated regulations that set maximum limits for the RVP of gasoline sold during the summer ozone control season—June 1st to September 15th. These regulations were referred to as Phase I of a two-phase nationwide program, which was designed to reduce the volatility of commercial gasoline during the summer ozone control season. See 54 FR 11868 (March 22, 1989). In 1990, EPA promulgated more stringent volatility controls under Phase II of the program. See 55 FR 23658 (June 11, 1990). These requirements established maximum RVP standards of 9.0 psi or 7.8 psi, depending on the State, and the month.

The 1990 amendments of the CAA mandated certain requirements for both summertime fuel volatility and the reformulated gasoline program. The amendments established a new provision, section 211(h), addressing gasoline volatility. Section 211(h) requires EPA to promulgate regulations making it unlawful to sell, offer for sale, dispense, supply, offer for supply, transport, or introduce into commerce gasoline with an RVP level in excess of 9.0 psi during the ozone control season. It further requires EPA to establish more stringent RVP standards in nonattainment areas if we find such standards “necessary to generally achieve comparable evaporative emissions (on a per vehicle basis) in nonattainment areas, taking into consideration the enforceability of such standards, the need of an area for emission control, and economic factors.” Section 211(h) prohibits EPA from establishing a volatility standard more stringent than 9.0 psi in an attainment area, except that we may impose a lower (more stringent) standard in any former ozone nonattainment area redesignated to attainment. In 1991, EPA modified the Phase II volatility regulations to be consistent with section 211(h) of the CAA. See 56 FR 64704 (December 12, 1991).

The 1990 amendments also established requirements that RFG achieve increased control of emissions of VOC during the summertime ozone season. For the year 2000 and beyond, EPA established summertime VOC performance standards as specified in the Table in Section II.B above. In addition to the two Federal fuel programs that regulate summertime VOC emissions under sections 211(h) and 211(k), the CAA also provides a limited mechanism under section 211(c) for States to establish more stringent fuel standards. EPA has approved several State low volatility gasoline programs under this authority.

Although the volatility regulations at 40 CFR 80.27 applies to RFG as well as CG, the RFG regulations effectively require RVP levels below those required under the section 211(h) RVP regulations. Under the RFG regulations, refiners and importers must designate RFG produced or imported for use during the summertime VOC control period as VOC-controlled, and all other RFG as non-VOC-controlled. The RVP in the VOC-controlled RFG supplied since 1998 is effectively controlled through the VOC emissions performance standards. While other gasoline parameters also affect VOC emission performance (as determined by the Complex Model that is used in the RFG program), RVP reduction from the statutory baseline is by far the primary means to achieve the VOC reduction standards, particularly with the more recent gasoline sulfur and oxygenate changes to gasoline. Hence, the VOC performance standards effectively limit RVP in RFG. As a result, the RFG emissions performance standards not only constrain average RVP levels below those permitted by the more general volatility regulations, but generally constrain maximum RVP levels as well.

EPA conducted emissions modeling using the MOtor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES)  7 to estimate the difference in VOC emissions from RFG relative to the typical CG that it would replace in Atlanta. EPA's fuel property database was used to develop a CG fuel formulation to represent GA gasoline. 8 In this modeling the VOC emissions estimates represent the 2013 ozone season and EPA used national level default runs with inputs focused on fuel property changes.

From this MOVES modeling approach, EPA determined that RFG would achieve a 1.58 percent greater reduction in VOC emissions performance during the summer ozone season (June 1 to September 15) compared to the Georgia SIP fuel program, i.e. Georgia gas. 9

As mentioned above, EPA sought comment on two options for the Atlanta covered area via the proposed rulemaking. Under the first option, the Area would be required to use RFG at least until it is redesignated to attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The anti-backsliding trigger date would be the same as that in the Phase 1 implementation rule—the effective date of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS designations. On that date Atlanta was classified as a severe area for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, and the requirement to use RFG was mandatory, starting January 1, 2005, based on that classification. The subsequent redesignation to attainment of the 1-hr ozone NAAQS would not change the continuing obligation to use RFG after the trigger date. . This option would emphasize that the area is still an ozone nonattainment area notwithstanding its redesignation to attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. 10 Under the first option, EPA would exercise its discretion to require continued use of RFG in Atlanta, based on the area's continued status as an ozone nonattainment area under the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Atlanta would remain an RFG covered area at least until it is redesignated to attainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. This approach is consistent with the approach adopted in the Phase 2 implementation final rule for other areas that were bumped-up to severe but were not redesignated to attainment for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS prior to revocation of that standard. See 70 FR 71612 (November 29, 2005).

Under the second option, the trigger date for Atlanta would be the date of revocation of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. The use of this trigger date would mean that if RFG was a mandatory obligation on that date, then the obligation would continue after revocation of the 1-hour NAAQS. If RFG was not a mandatory obligation on that date then it would not continue after the date of revocation. Hence the primary issue under this option would be whether RFG should be considered a mandatory obligation as of the trigger date. As noted above, section 211(k)(10)(D) of the Act is ambiguous on whether the obligation to use RFG would continue to apply as of this trigger date, since the prior redesignation to attainment for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS means the area was no longer classified as a severe area as of that date. The issue is not whether a requirement that applied on the trigger date should continue to apply after revocation, but whether this specific federal requirement would or would not apply on the trigger date. To the extent this issue could be seen as overlapping with the more general issue of having an antibacksliding approach, EPA believes that both the statutory language and the indicia of Congressional intent on how to resolve this issue under section 211(k)(10)(D) are ambiguous. Under this second option, EPA would exercise its discretion and resolve the ambiguity by allowing the RFG requirement to no longer apply for the Atlanta area, based on the removal of the severe classification upon redesignation to attainment for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA would condition, this, however, on the State requesting such removal of RFG and demonstrating that removal would not result in a loss of emissions reductions relied upon in the SIP. This second option would place somewhat more emphasis on flexibility for the State in determining whether this Federal ozone related control measure should apply in the area, for the following reasons. The only area to which this proposal would apply is Atlanta, which is currently implementing a state low sulfur, low RVP fuel control measure that has been approved into its SIP. 11 The removal of Atlanta as an RFG covered area would simplify the tasks confronting the fuel refining and distribution system, an additional fuel that meets both the state fuel requirements and the Federal RFG requirements would not need to be produced and distributed. This would directionally reduce the burden on a fuel infrastructure system that has been tasked to meet several new Federal fuel requirements adopted over the last few years. In addition, this option acknowledges the significant progress Atlanta has made in reducing ozone levels and attaining the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, and the fact that Atlanta's significant progress in reducing ozone levels has occurred without the use of RFG. Because the option requires a demonstration that dropping the RFG requirement will not lead to a loss in emissions reductions relied upon in the SIP, this option should not adversely affect Atlanta's SIP planning for future attainment of the 8-hour standard.

EPA believes it has discretion in choosing the appropriate trigger date for purposes of anti-backsliding. The use of the date of revocation of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS as the trigger date under this option would not raise the SIP planning concerns that led to rejection of this as an appropriate trigger date for the Phase 1 rule. EPA rejected the date of revocation as a trigger date for the Phase 1 rule because it would interfere with SIP planning, especially for areas required to submit SIP plans by the date of revocation. See 70 FR 5596 (February 3, 2005) Here, the date of revocation has already passed. In addition, Atlanta has demonstrated attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS and the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS without relying on the use of RFG and there are no indications that the second option would interfere with Atlanta's SIP planning for attainment of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

EPA received five sets of comments in response to the NPRM. Four of those comments urged adoption of the second option which would remove the RFG requirement with assurance of no loss of emission reductions relied upon in the SIP. The comments reflected that this option would assure no loss of emission benefits relied upon in the SIP and would avoid a new “boutique” blend of fuel from being distributed in the Atlanta market where 13 core counties would be RFG required areas, but where fuel in 32 additional surrounding counties would meet differing SIP fuel requirements.

The Renewable Fuels Association (RFA) submitted comments that identified an alternate approach, and absent that, supported adoption of Option 1. RFA's main comments are summarized and EPA's response provided separately, below:

Comment: An additional and preferable alternative would be for EPA to certify Georgia gas as RFG.

Response: The regulatory specifications for the two fuels are different: Georgia gas has an RVP cap to control VOC emissions whereas RFG must meet a VOC performance requirement. In addition, as demonstrated through the MOVES modeling described above, use of RFG would result in slightly lower VOC emissions than Georgia gas. The characteristics of RFG are specified in laws and regulations. EPA cannot determine that a fuel that does not meet those characteristics can be certified as RFG. Therefore, it is not a viable option to simply certify Georgia gas as RFG. 12

Comment: The distinction between Atlanta and the other bump up areas EPA addressed in the phase II rule, for which EPA has required RFG use at least until redesignation to attainment for the 8-hour standard, amounts to “form over substance” since Atlanta is in non-attainment for the 8-hour standard like those other bump up areas.

Response: The redesignation of Atlanta to attainment for the 1-hour ozone standard was a significant event and is relevant to considering Atlanta different than the other bump-up areas which had not been redesignated to attainment for the 1-hour ozone standard prior to its revocation. Atlanta's legal status is different than that of other bump-up areas since it is the only area that was redesignated to attainment of the 1-hour NAAQS before that standard was revoked. As discussed above, the statute is ambiguous with respect to RFG requirements after an area is no longer classified as a severe area, based on redesignation to attainment for the 1-hour standard. Thus, Atlanta's attainment status under the 1-hour standard before that standard was revoked is not a matter of “form” only, but an important issue with respect to statutory construction. In the proposal EPA explained that Atlanta's unique circumstances supported consideration of a different approach for Atlanta than that adopted in the Phase 2 rule for the bump-up areas that lost their classification of severe based solely on the revocation of the 1-hour standard. See 71 FR at 36045-46. EPA continues to believe these differences are substantive and support the interpretation adopted in this final rule.

Comment: Analysis of other provisions of the CAA (211(h) and (m)), and EPA's own statements in its 9/29/1998 rule (which was struck down in a judicial challenge) expanding eligibility to opt-in to RFG to former nonattainment areas, demonstrate that the statute is not ambiguous in the context of Atlanta, and that EPA has no discretion to remove the RFG requirement.

Response: EPA disagrees with this comment. Both CAA Sections 221(h) and (m) include provisions addressing their applicability to nonattainment areas that are redesignated to attainment of the relevant NAAQS. In contrast, 211(k) includes no such provisions. There is no reason to assume, as the commenter does, that this necessarily means that RFG covered areas must continue to use RFG indefinitely, regardless of air quality improvements. It simply means that Congress has not addressed the issue of RFG requirements when an RFG covered area is redesignated to attainment for the ozone NAAQS. With respect to EPA's statements in the preamble to the 1998 rule that sought to expand RFG opt-in opportunities, EPA attempted to resolve ambiguity it perceived in the statute in favor of expanded opt-in eligibility due to the considerable emissions benefits of RFG at that time. This rule was later invalidated in a judicial challenge. Today EPA is interpreting different ambiguous language in a much different context, where there are very limited benefits to RFG use as compared to Georgia gas, and where the State has been redesignated to attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS prior to its revocation, and redesignated to attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, without ever using RFG to reach these milestones. Therefore, EPA does not agree that its statements in the preamble to the 1998 rule necessitate a continued RFG requirement in Atlanta.

Comment: EPA failed to consider the toxic pollutant emissions benefits of RFG.

Response: Since the comments were received, EPA has adopted and implemented the Mobile Source Air Toxics Rule (MSAT2). As a result of this rule, conventional gasoline must meet the same toxics requirements as RFG. Accordingly, although EPA agrees with the commenter that it is appropriate to consider toxic pollutant emissions of RFG as compared to Georgia gas in finalizing this rule; this consideration does not weigh in favor of requiring Atlanta to use RFG.

Comment: EPA's discussion of infrastructure concerns ignored investments made by some companies to provide RFG to Atlanta.

Response: In late 2005, Congress passed the Energy Policy Act which directed EPA to remove the oxygenate requirement in RFG and to establish a renewable fuels standard program to require increasing use of renewable fuels such as ethanol in motor vehicle gasoline. The statute was considerably amended in 2007 to require that even larger volumes of renewable fuel be used, with volumes increasing annually to 36 billion gallons in 2022. The investments referenced by the commenters related principally to the production, distribution, and blending of ethanol. In light of the statutory changes noted above, such infrastructure changes have likely been used to provide renewable fuel for satisfying the new renewable fuel standard requirements. This same infrastructure will therefore continue to be needed regardless of whether RFG is required in Atlanta. Moreover, requiring three fuel blends (conventional gasoline, Georgia gas, and RFG) to be distributed in the region would likely present distribution, tankage, and fuel fungibility challenges and constraints. This factor therefore weighs against requiring continued use of RFG in Atlanta.

In soliciting comment on the proposal, we suggested consideration of three criteria: (1) Current 8-hour ozone designation, (2) the likely effect on ozone NAAQS attainment, and (3) the likely effect on the fuel infrastructure. We have considered these same factors in finalizing this rule, and have also considered the fact that in light of recent regulatory improvements to conventional gasoline requirements, there is no toxic pollutant emissions benefit to using RFG as compared to Georgia gas. Emissions impacts associated with this decision are described in detail in Section II of this preamble. The fact that Georgia has not relied on RFG for purposes of its approved ozone SIP means that removing the RFG requirement will have no impact on ozone NAAQS attainment. EPA further believes that removing the requirement for RFG in Atlanta will remove significant potential hurdles in fuel fungibility. Were RFG to be required in the 13 counties that were bumped up to severe under the 1-hour ozone standard, the Georgia gas program would continue to require Georgia gas be supplied to the remaining 32 counties covered by that requirement (45 county area). Therefore, by removing the RFG requirement, EPA removes the potential that three distinct fuels (CG, RFG, and GA gas) would be produced for the region. Removing regulatory impediments that may result in a fractured market enhances the fungibility of fuel and protects consumers in times of fuel supply shortages. For the reasons discussed herein, EPA believes it is appropriate to adopt the second option discussed in the proposal.

In this action, EPA has determined that an area reclassified as a severe ozone nonattainment area under the 1-hour ozone standard as a result of failure to meet attainment deadlines, and which was then redesignated to attainment for the 1-hour ozone standard prior to revocation of that standard (i.e. Atlanta), is not required to remain an RFG covered area, even if it is currently designated as an ozone nonattainment area (marginal) for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Our determination is based upon an interpretation of section 211(k)(10)(D), consideration of the appropriate anti-backsliding approach under the circumstances in question, and the public comments we have received.

Given the ambiguity in section 211(k)(10)(D) on the issue of whether and how long a bump-up area continues to be a covered area when it is no longer classified as severe, EPA has exercised discretion in this action to determine appropriate requirements for the Atlanta area. Atlanta is unique among the bump-up areas in that it was redesignated to attainment for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS prior to that standard's revocation. At the time, Atlanta was also designated nonattainment and classified as marginal for the 1997 8-hour NAAQS. For Atlanta, the choice of a reasonable trigger date makes a difference in whether the requirement to use RFG continues after revocation of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.

In the Phase 2 rule, EPA recognized that section 211(k)(10)(D) of the CAA is ambiguous with respect to whether and how long a bump-up area continues to be an RFG covered area when it is no longer classified as severe. Given this ambiguity, EPA stated that it has discretion to determine whether section 211(k)(10)(D) authorizes removal of a bump-up area from the RFG program when it is no longer classified as severe, and to set appropriate criteria for such removal. See 70 FR at 71686. EPA believes that the comprehensive planning conducted by states through the SIP process, the array of regulatory tools at the states' disposal, and based on its unique circumstances, the limited emissions benefits currently attributable to RFG in the Atlanta area indicate that it would be appropriate to no longer require that the Atlanta bump-up area be an RFG covered area. Providing the State the discretion whether to include federal RFG as part of the required control measures relied upon for ozone attainment and maintenance recognizes the central role played by the States in developing SIPs, including developing the maintenance plan, and the array of tools available to States to achieve attainment and maintenance.

Therefore, EPA is interpreting the definition of covered area in section 211(k)(10)(D) for an area formerly classified as a severe ozone nonattainment area under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS that was redesignated to attainment for that standard before its revocation, and which is currently designated as nonattaiment for the 8-hour ozone standard with a classification less than severe, as allowing removal of RFG upon request by the State and demonstration that removal would not result in loss of any RFG-related emission reductions relied upon in the State's Implementation Plan.

Atlanta meets the criteria specified in today's rule for removal as an RFG covered area, including the State having requested such removal and the State not having relied on emission from federal RFG in its approved SIP. Therefore, the effect of today's action is that Atlanta is no longer a federal RFG covered area and there is no present requirement to use federal RFG in the Atlanta area. Today's action does not limit Atlanta's opportunity to opt-in to the federal RFG program in the future if the requirements are met for an opt-in. Moreover, if the Atlanta area was ever to be reclassified as a severe nonattainment area under the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, the nonattainment area would become an RFG covered area as a result.

As of November 14, 2013, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), determined that this action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).

This action does not impose any new information collection burden. This action removes an existing requirement not yet implemented. However, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has previously approved the information collection requirements contained in the final RFG/antidumping rulemaking (see 59 FR 7716, February 16, 1994) and under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. has assigned OMB control number 2060-0277 (EPA ICR No. 1591.25). The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.

For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business that has not more than 1,500 employees (13 CFR 121.201); (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.

After considering the economic impacts of this action on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, as the option finalized herein removes a regulatory requirement not yet implemented.

This action contains no Federal mandates under the provisions of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538 for State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any State, local or tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore, this action is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of the UMRA. This action is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action removes an existing regulatory requirement not yet implemented.

This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. This action removes an existing requirement not yet implemented. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action. Although section 6 of Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action, the State of Georgia submitted comments to the proposal and supported the option being finalized today.

This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, 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. This final rule does not create a mandate for any tribal government nor would the rule impose any enforceable duties on these entities. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the EO has the potential to influence the regulation. This action is not subject to EO 13045 because it implements specific standards established by Congress in statutes.

This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)), because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (“NTTAA”), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.

This action does not involved technical standards. Therefore, EPA did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States.

EPA has determined that this final rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. For the option finalized in this rule to be implemented, the State must demonstrate that removal of the RFG requirement would not result in loss of emission reductions relied upon in the ozone state implementation plan and it has done so. Moreover, since RFG has never actually been implemented in Atlanta, this action will not result in an actual change in emissions.

The Statutory authority for the action finalized today is granted to EPA by sections 211(k) and 301 of the Clean Air Act, as amended; 42 U.S.C. 7545(k) and 7601.

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 rule 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). This rule will be effective upon publication in the Federal Register .

Accordingly, 40 CFR part 80 is amended as follows:

What is the list of fisheries?

Section 118 of the MMPA requires NMFS to place all U.S. commercial fisheries into one of three categories based on the level of incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals occurring in each fishery (16 U.S.C. 1387(c)(1)). The classification of a fishery on the LOF determines whether participants in that fishery may be required to comply with certain provisions of the MMPA, such as registration, observer coverage, and take reduction plan requirements. NMFS must reexamine the LOF annually, considering new information in the Marine Mammal Stock Assessment Reports (SARs) and other relevant sources, and publish in the Federal Register any necessary changes to the LOF after notice and opportunity for public comment (16 U.S.C. 1387 (c)(1)(C)).

The definitions for the fishery classification criteria can be found in the implementing regulations for section 118 of the MMPA (50 CFR 229.2). The criteria are also summarized here.

The fishery classification criteria consist of a two-tiered, stock-specific approach that first addresses the total impact of all fisheries on each marine mammal stock and then addresses the impact of individual fisheries on each stock. This approach is based on consideration of the rate, in numbers of animals per year, of incidental mortalities and serious injuries of marine mammals due to commercial fishing operations relative to the potential biological removal (PBR) level for each marine mammal stock. The MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1362 (20)) defines the PBR level as the maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be removed from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimum sustainable population. This definition can also be found in the implementing regulations for section 118 of the MMPA (50 CFR 229.2).

Tier 1: If the total annual mortality and serious injury of a marine mammal stock, across all fisheries, is less than or equal to 10 percent of the PBR level of the stock, all fisheries interacting with the stock will be placed in Category III (unless those fisheries interact with other stock(s) in which total annual mortality and serious injury is greater than 10 percent of PBR). Otherwise, these fisheries are subject to the next tier (Tier 2) of analysis to determine their classification.

Tier 2, Category I: Annual mortality and serious injury of a stock in a given fishery is greater than or equal to 50 percent of the PBR level (i.e., frequent incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals).

Tier 2, Category II: Annual mortality and serious injury of a stock in a given fishery is greater than 1 percent and less than 50 percent of the PBR level (i.e., occasional incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals).

Tier 2, Category III: Annual mortality and serious injury of a stock in a given fishery is less than or equal to 1 percent of the PBR level (i.e., a remote likelihood or no known incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals).

While Tier 1 considers the cumulative fishery mortality and serious injury for a particular stock, Tier 2 considers fishery-specific mortality and serious injury for a particular stock. Additional details regarding how the categories were determined are provided in the preamble to the final rule implementing section 118 of the MMPA (60 FR 45086, August 30, 1995).

Because fisheries are classified on a per-stock basis, a fishery may qualify as one Category for one marine mammal stock and another Category for a different marine mammal stock. A fishery is typically classified on the LOF at its highest level of classification (e.g., a fishery qualifying for Category III for one marine mammal stock and for Category II for another marine mammal stock will be listed under Category II).

There are several fisheries on the LOF classified as Category II that have no recent documented mortalities or injuries of marine mammals, or fisheries that did not result in a mortality and serious injury rate greater than 1 percent of a stock's PBR level based on known interactions. NMFS has classified these fisheries by analogy to other Category I or II fisheries that use similar fishing techniques or gear that are known to cause mortality or serious injury of marine mammals, or according to factors discussed in the final LOF for 1996 (60 FR 67063, December 28, 1995) and listed in the regulatory definition of a Category II fishery: “In the absence of reliable information indicating the frequency of incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals by a commercial fishery, NMFS will determine whether the incidental mortality or serious injury is `frequent,' `occasional,' or `remote' by evaluating other factors such as fishing techniques, gear used, methods used to deter marine mammals, target species, seasons and areas fished, qualitative data from logbooks or fisher reports, stranding data, and the species and distribution of marine mammals in the area, or at the discretion of the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries” (50 CFR 229.2).

Further, eligible commercial fisheries not specifically identified on the LOF are deemed to be Category II fisheries until the next LOF is published (50 CFR 229.2).

The LOF includes a list of marine mammal species or stocks incidentally killed or injured in each commercial fishery. The list of species or stocks incidentally killed or injured includes “serious” and “non-serious” documented injuries as described later in the List of Species or Stocks Incidentally Killed or Injured in the Pacific Ocean and the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean sections. To determine which species or stocks are included as incidentally killed or injured in a fishery, NMFS annually reviews the information presented in the current SARs. The SARs are based upon the best available scientific information and provide the most current and inclusive information on each stock's PBR level and level of interaction with commercial fishing operations. The best available scientific information used in the SARs reviewed for the 2014 LOF generally summarizes data from 2007-2011. NMFS also reviews other sources of new information, including observer data, stranding data, and fisher self-reports from that time period.

In the absence of reliable information on the level of mortality or injury of a marine mammal stock, or insufficient observer data, NMFS will determine whether a species or stock should be added to, or deleted from, the list by considering other factors such as: Changes in gear used, increases or decreases in fishing effort, increases or decreases in the level of observer coverage, and/or changes in fishery management that are expected to lead to decreases in interactions with a given marine mammal stock (such as a TRP or a fishery management plan (FMP)). In these instances, NMFS will provide case-specific justification in the LOF for changes to the list of species or stocks incidentally killed or injured and may rely on data outside the 5-year (2007-2011) SAR data period.

The best available information on the level of observer coverage and the spatial and temporal distribution of observed marine mammal interactions is presented in the SARs. Data obtained from the observer program and observer coverage levels are important tools in estimating the level of marine mammal mortality and serious injury in commercial fishing operations. Starting with the 2005 SARs, each SAR includes an appendix with detailed descriptions of each Category I and II fishery on the LOF, including the observer coverage in those fisheries. The SARs generally do not provide detailed information on observer coverage in Category III fisheries because, under the MMPA, Category III fisheries are not required to accommodate observers aboard vessels due to the remote likelihood of mortality and serious injury of marine mammals. Fishery information presented in the SARs' appendices and other resources referenced during the tier analysis may include: level of observer coverage, target species, levels of fishing effort, spatial and temporal distribution of fishing effort, characteristics of fishing gear and operations, management and regulations, and interactions with marine mammals. Copies of the SARs are available on the NMFS Office of Protected Resources Web site at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/. Information on observer coverage levels in Category I and II fisheries can also be found in the Category I and II fishery fact sheets on the NMFS Office of Protected Resources Web site: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/interactions/lof/. Additional information on observer programs in commercial fisheries can be found on the NMFS National Observer Program's Web site: http://www.st.nmfs.gov/st4/nop/.

This rule includes three tables that list all U.S. commercial fisheries by LOF Category. Table 1 lists all of the commercial fisheries in the Pacific Ocean (including Alaska); Table 2 lists all of the commercial fisheries in the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean; and Table 3 lists all U.S.-authorized commercial fisheries on the high seas. A fourth table, Table 4, lists all commercial fisheries managed under applicable TRPs or take reduction teams (TRTs).

Beginning with the 2009 LOF, NMFS includes high seas fisheries in Table 3 of the LOF, along with the number of valid High Seas Fishing Compliance Act (HSFCA) permits in each fishery. As of 2004, NMFS issues HSFCA permits only for high seas fisheries analyzed in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The authorized high seas fisheries are broad in scope and encompass multiple specific fisheries identified by gear type. For the purposes of the LOF, the high seas fisheries are subdivided based on gear type (e.g., trawl, longline, purse seine, gillnet, troll, etc.) to provide more detail on composition of effort within these fisheries. Many fisheries operate in both U.S. waters and on the high seas, creating some overlap between the fisheries listed in Tables 1 and 2 and those in Table 3. In these cases, the high seas component of the fishery is not considered a separate fishery, but an extension of a fishery operating within U.S. waters (listed in Table 1 or 2). NMFS designates those fisheries in Tables 1, 2, and 3 by a “*” after the fishery's name. The number of HSFCA permits listed in Table 3 for the high seas components of these fisheries operating in U.S. waters does not necessarily represent additional effort that is not accounted for in Tables 1 and 2. Many vessels/participants holding HSFCA permits also fish within U.S. waters and are included in the number of vessels and participants operating within those fisheries in Tables 1 and 2.

HSFCA permits are valid for five years, during which time FMPs can change. Therefore, some vessels/participants may possess valid HSFCA permits without the ability to fish under the permit because it was issued for a gear type that is no longer authorized under the most current FMP. For this reason, the number of HSFCA permits displayed in Table 3 is likely higher than the actual U.S. fishing effort on the high seas. For more information on how NMFS classifies high seas fisheries on the LOF, see the preamble text in the final 2009 LOF (73 FR 73032; December 1, 2008).

Starting with the 2010 LOF, NMFS developed summary documents, or fishery fact sheets, for each Category I and II fishery on the LOF. These fishery fact sheets provide the full history of each Category I and II fishery, including: when the fishery was added to the LOF, the basis for the fishery's initial classification, classification changes to the fishery, changes to the list of species or stocks incidentally killed or injured in the fishery, fishery gear and methods used, observer coverage levels, fishery management and regulation, and applicable TRPs or TRTs, if any. These fishery fact sheets are updated after each final LOF and can be found under “How Do I Find Out if a Specific Fishery is in Category I, II, or III?” on the NMFS Office of Protected Resources' Web site: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/interactions/lof/, linked to the “List of Fisheries by Year” table. NMFS plans to develop similar fishery fact sheets for each Category III fishery on the LOF. However, due to the large number of Category III fisheries on the LOF and the lack of accessible and detailed information on many of these fisheries, the development of these fishery fact sheets will take significant time to complete. NMFS anticipates posting Category III fishery fact sheets along with the final 2015 LOF, although this timeline may be revised as this effort progresses.

Owners of vessels or gear engaging in a Category I or II fishery are required under the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1387(c)(2)), as described in 50 CFR 229.4, to register with NMFS and obtain a marine mammal authorization to lawfully take non-endangered and non-threatened marine mammals incidental to commercial fishing operations. Owners of vessels or gear engaged in a Category III fishery are not required to register with NMFS or obtain a marine mammal authorization.

NMFS has integrated the MMPA registration process, implemented through the Marine Mammal Authorization Program (MMAP), with existing state and Federal fishery license, registration, or permit systems for Category I and II fisheries on the LOF. Participants in these fisheries are automatically registered under the MMAP and are not required to submit registration or renewal materials directly under the MMAP. In the Pacific Islands, West Coast, and Alaska regions, NMFS will issue vessel or gear owners an authorization certificate and/or mortality/injury reporting forms via U.S. mail or with their state or Federal license at the time of renewal. In the Northeast region, NMFS will issue vessel or gear owners an authorization certificate via U.S. mail automatically at the beginning of each calendar year; but vessel or gear owners must request or print mortality/injury reporting forms by contacting the NMFS Northeast Regional Office at 978-281-9328 or by visiting the Northeast Regional Office Web site ( http://www.nero.noaa.gov/mmap ). In the Southeast region, NMFS will issue vessel or gear owners notification of registry and vessel or gear owners may receive their authorization certificate and/or mortality/injury reporting form by contacting the Southeast Regional Office at 727-209-5952 or by visiting the Southeast Regional Office Web site ( http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/mm/mmap.htm ) and following the instructions for printing the necessary documents. Mortality/injury forms are also available online at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/interactions/mmap_reporting_form.pdf.

The authorization certificate, or a copy, must be on board the vessel while it is operating in a Category I or II fishery, or for non-vessel fisheries, in the possession of the person in charge of the fishing operation (50 CFR 229.4(e)). Although efforts are made to limit the issuance of authorization certificates to only those vessel or gear owners that participate in Category I or II fisheries, not all state and Federal permit systems distinguish between fisheries as classified by the LOF. Therefore, some vessel or gear owners in Category III fisheries may receive authorization certificates even though they are not required for Category III fisheries. Individuals fishing in Category I and II fisheries for which no state or Federal permit is required must register with NMFS by contacting their appropriate Regional Office (see ADDRESSES ).

In Alaska and Northeast regional fisheries, registrations of vessel or gear owners are automatically renewed and participants should receive an authorization certificate by January 1 of each new year. In Pacific Islands regional fisheries, vessel or gear owners receive an authorization certificate by January 1 for state fisheries and with their permit renewal for federal fisheries. In West Coast regional fisheries, vessel or gear owners receive authorization with each renewed state fishing license, the timing of which varies based on target species. Vessel or gear owners who participate in these regions and have not received authorization certificates by January 1 or with renewed fishing licenses must contact the appropriate NMFS Regional Office (see ADDRESSES ).

In Southeast regional fisheries, vessel or gear owners' registrations are automatically renewed and participants will receive a letter in the mail by January 1 instructing them to contact the Southeast Regional Office to have an authorization certificate mailed to them or to visit the Southeast Regional Office Web site ( http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/mm/mmap.htm ) to print their own certificate.

In accordance with the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1387(e)) and 50 CFR 229.6, any vessel owner or operator, or gear owner or operator (in the case of non-vessel fisheries), participating in a fishery listed on the LOF must report to NMFS all incidental mortalities and injuries of marine mammals that occur during commercial fishing operations, regardless of the category in which the fishery is placed (I, II, or III) within 48 hours of the end of the fishing trip. “Injury” is defined in 50 CFR 229.2 as a wound or other physical harm. In addition, any animal that ingests fishing gear or any animal that is released with fishing gear entangling, trailing, or perforating any part of the body is considered injured, regardless of the presence of any wound or other evidence of injury, and must be reported. Mortality/injury reporting forms and instructions for submitting forms to NMFS can be downloaded from: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/interactions/mmap_reporting_form.pdf or by contacting the appropriate Regional office (see ADDRESSES ). Forms may be faxed directly to the NMFS Office of Protected Resources at 301-713-4060 or 301-713-0376. Reporting requirements and procedures can be found in 50 CFR 229.6.

Individuals participating in a Category I or II fishery are required to accommodate an observer aboard their vessel(s) upon request from NMFS. MMPA section 118 states that an observer may not be required on a vessel if the facilities for quartering an observer or performing observer functions are inadequate or unsafe; thereby exempting vessels too small to accommodate an observer from this requirement. However, observer requirements will not be exempted, regardless of vessel size, for U.S. Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico large pelagics longline vessels operating in special areas designated by the Pelagic Longline Take Reduction Plan implementing regulations (50 CFR 229.36(d)). Observer requirements can be found in 50 CFR 229.7.

Table 4 in this rule provides a list of fisheries affected by TRPs and TRTs. TRP regulations can be found at 50 CFR 229.30 through 229.37. A description of each TRT and copies of each TRP can be found at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/interactions/trt/. It is the responsibility of fishery participants to comply with applicable take reduction regulations.

Information regarding the LOF and the Marine Mammal Authorization Program, including registration procedures and forms, current and past LOFs, information on each Category I and II fishery, observer requirements, and marine mammal mortality/injury reporting forms and submittal procedures, may be obtained at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/interactions/lof/, or from any NMFS Regional Office at the addresses listed below:

NMFS, Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930-2298, Attn: Allison Rosner;

NMFS, Southeast Region, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701, Attn: Jessica Powell;

NMFS, West Coast Region, Long Beach Office, 501 W. Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802-4213, Attn: Elizabeth Petras;

NMFS, West Coast Region, Seattle Office, 7600 Sand Point Way NE., Seattle, WA 98115, Attn: Brent Norberg, Protected Resources Division;

NMFS, Alaska Region, Protected Resources, P.O. Box 22668, 709 West 9th Street, Juneau, AK 99802, Attn: Kim Rivera; or

NOAA/IRC, 1845 Wasp Blvd., Building 176, Honolulu, HI 96818, Attn: NMFS/PIRO/PRD/Nancy Young.

NMFS reviewed the marine mammal incidental mortality and serious injury information presented in the SARs for all fisheries to determine whether changes in fishery classification are warranted. The SARs are based on the best scientific information available at the time of preparation, including the level of mortality and serious injury of marine mammals that occurs incidental to commercial fishery operations and the PBR levels of marine mammal stocks. The information contained in the SARs is reviewed by regional Scientific Review Groups (SRGs) representing Alaska, the Pacific (including Hawaii), and the U.S. Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean. The SRGs were created by the MMPA to review the science that informs the SARs, and to advise NMFS on marine mammal population status, trends, and stock structure, uncertainties in the science, research needs, and other issues.

NMFS also reviewed other sources of new information, including marine mammal stranding data, observer program data, fisher self-reports through the Marine Mammal Authorization Program, reports to the SRGs, conference papers, FMPs, and ESA documents.

The LOF for 2014 was based on, among other things, information provided in the NEPA and ESA documents analyzing authorized high seas fisheries; stranding data; fishermen self-reports through the MMAP; and SARs, primarily the draft 2013 SARs, which are generally based on data from 2007-2011. The final SARs referenced in this LOF include: 2007 (73 FR 21111, April 18, 2008), 2008 (74 FR 19530, April 29, 2009), 2009 (75 FR 12498, March 16, 2010), 2010 (76 FR 34054, June 10, 2011), 2011 (77 FR 29969, May 21, 2012); and 2012 (78 FR 19446, April, 1 2013) and the draft SAR for 2013 (78 FR 66681, November 6, 2013). The SARs are available at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/.

NMFS received three comment letters on the proposed LOF for 2014 (78 FR 73477, December 6, 2013). Comments were received from the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), Hawaii Longline Association (HLA), and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). Comments on issues outside of the scope of the LOF were noted, but generally without response.

Comment 1: DOI provided fishery description information and marine mammal incidental interaction data for the CA Dungeness crab pot fishery. The Redwood National and State Parks wildlife observation/beach carcass database has 12 reports of dead whales since 1994. Whale species in the database include: gray, humpback, and fin whales. No known causes of death were attributed to the strandings.

Response: NMFS acknowledges this comment.

Comment 2: The WDFW recommends NMFS update the estimated number of vessels/persons for the WA salmon purse seine fishery to 75 and for the WA salmon reef net fishery to 11, based on the number of current WA State licenses issued for the respective fisheries.

Response: NMFS acknowledges the comment and revises the estimated number of vessels/persons from 440 to 75 for the WA salmon purse seine fishery and from 53 to 11 for the WA salmon reef net fishery.

Comment 3: The HLA supports the proposed change that indicates the Main Hawaiian Islands (MHI) insular false killer whale is not a basis for the Hawaii-based deep-set longline fishery's Category I classification.

Response: NMFS acknowledges this comment and is finalizing the proposed change to remove the superscript following the MHI insular false killer whale, to indicate that the stock does not drive the fishery's Category I classification.

Comment 4: HLA contends that the Hawaii-based deep-set longline fishery does not interact with MHI insular false killer whales, and that the regulations implementing the False Killer Whale Take Reduction Plan have eliminated the likelihood of any theoretical future interactions between the fishery and the MHI insular false killer whale stock. HLA opposes including the stock on the list of marine mammals injured or killed in the deep-set fishery.

Response: NMFS determines which species or stocks are included as incidentally killed or injured in a fishery by annually reviewing the information presented in the current SARs, among other relevant sources. The SARs are based on the best available scientific information and provide the most current and inclusive information on each stock, including range, abundance, PBR, and level of interaction with commercial fishing operations. The LOF does not duplicate the analyses or evaluation of the data and calculations contained within the SARs.

The 2014 LOF is based on the draft 2013 SARs, which include data from 2007-2011. The draft 2013 SAR for false killer whales indicates that an average of 0.1 mortalities or serious injuries of MHI insular false killer whales occurred each year incidental to the Hawaii-based deep-set longline fishery from 2007-2011 (Carretta et al., 2013). Because the estimate of mortality and serious injury for the stock in this fishery is greater than zero for the period of time covered by the 2014 LOF, the stock is being retained on the list of marine mammal stocks incidentally killed or injured in the fishery. For a more complete analysis of the methodology for determining mortality and serious injury of MHI insular false killer whales, the commenter is referred to the draft 2013 SAR.

As noted above, the most recent data used to inform the 2014 LOF are from 2011. The False Killer Whale Take Reduction Plan (77 FR 71260) was published on November 29, 2012, and its implementing regulations went into effect on December 31, 2012 and February 27, 2013. False killer whale mortality and serious injury estimates in the Hawaii-based deep-set longline fishery for 2012 and 2013 have not yet been finally evaluated or published in a SAR and, therefore, could not be considered for the 2014 LOF. Any changes in the false killer whale mortality and serious injury estimate that may result from the Take Reduction Plan will be evaluated in a future SAR and will be considered in a future LOF.

Comment 5: HLA supports the proposed removal of all “unknown” stocks from the list of marine mammals incidentally injured or killed in the Hawaii deep-set and shallow-set longline fisheries on Table 3.

Response: NMFS acknowledges this comment and is finalizing the removal of all “unknown” stocks of species injured or killed in the Hawaii deep-set and shallow-set longline fisheries on Table 3.

Comment 6: The HLA opposes the continued inclusion of short-finned pilot whales on the list of species injured or killed in the Hawaii shallow-set longline fishery because it is not supported by the available data. HLA states that, in the absence of data confirming that the fishery is interacting with short-finned pilot whales, NMFS may not add the species to the list of species or stocks that are incidentally killed or injured by the fishery.

Response: The draft 2013 SAR for the Hawaii stock of short-finned pilot whales states that two unidentified cetaceans, known to be either false killer whales or short-finned pilot whales (i.e., “blackfish”), were observed seriously injured in the shallow-set longline fishery on the high seas from 2007-2011 (Carretta et al., 2013). When the species of a blackfish cannot be positively identified, NMFS prorates the interaction to each stock based on distance from shore (McCracken, 2010). Until all animals that are taken can be identified to either species (e.g., using photos, tissue samples), this prorating approach constitutes the best available information and ensures that potential impacts to all species and stocks are assessed. Based on this approach, the estimated average annual mortality and serious injury of short-finned pilot whales in the fishery on the high seas is 0.1 (Carretta et al., 2013). Therefore, NMFS is retaining short-finned pilot whales on the list of species or stocks that are incidentally killed or injured by the fishery.

Comment 7: HLA notes that for fisheries that operate both in the U.S. EEZ and on the high seas, marine mammal species for which an interaction has occurred in either the EEZ or the high seas are included on the lists of species injured or killed in both the EEZ and the high seas (i.e., on both Tables 1 or 2 and Table 3). This results in a mistaken implication that a given fishery may interact with a certain species in one geographic area (e.g., within the EEZ) when that fishery has only been observed to interact with the species in another geographic area (e.g., on the high seas). HLA requests that NMFS correct the LOF to attribute species interactions in transboundary fisheries to only those geographic regions where interactions are actually observed. This change would not result in underreporting of species injured or killed, but would avoid the arbitrary result of takes being attributed to fisheries in areas in which no take has ever been observed.

Response: As described in the preamble, NMFS has included high seas fisheries in Table 3 of the LOF since 2009. Several fisheries operate in both U.S. waters and on the high seas, creating some overlap between the fisheries listed in Tables 1 and 2 and those in Table 3. In these cases, the high seas component of the fishery is not considered a separate fishery, but an extension of a fishery operating within U.S. waters. For these fisheries, the lists of species or stocks injured or killed in Table 3 are identical to their Table 1 or 2 counterparts, except for those species or stocks with distributions known to occur on only one side of the EEZ boundary. Because the fisheries and the marine mammal lists are the same, takes of these animals are not being attributed to one geographic area or the other, even when that information may be available. The take is attributed to the specific fishery with the marine mammal interaction. This parallel list structure is explained in the footnotes for each table.

Comment 8: DOI recommends that NMFS remove the Florida stock of the West Indian manatee from the list of species/stocks incidentally killed or injured in the Category II, Southeastern U.S. Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico shrimp trawl fishery. FWS notes that there have been no Florida manatee mortalities or serious injuries in this fishery since 1988.

Response: NMFS acknowledges this comment and corrects a typographical error which inadvertently left the Florida stock of the West Indian manatee on the list of species/stocks incidentally killed or injured in the Southeastern U.S. Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico shrimp trawl fishery. NMFS removed Florida stock of the West Indian manatee in the final rule for the 2013 LOF (78 FR 53345).

Comment 9: DOI recommends that NMFS remove the Florida stock of the West Indian manatee from the list of species/stocks incidentally killed or injured in the Category II Atlantic blue crab trap/pot fishery. FWS notes between 1982 and 2012 there have been 12 serious injuries and no deaths of Florida manatees in the Atlantic blue crab trap/pot fishery. For the most recent five-year period of record (2008-2012) four manatees were seriously injured (0.8 manatees per year).

Response: NMFS finds the inclusion of the Florida stock of West Indian manatee on the list of species/stocks incidentally killed or injured in the Atlantic blue crab trap/pot fishery to be appropriate, with the superscript reference, because three serious injuries have been documented in the most recent five-year period. In the draft 2013 SARs, the PBR for the West Indian manatee was 14.98, and 3 serious injuries (0.6 manatee per year) were reported from 2007-2011 in Atlantic blue crab pot gear, 4% (0.6/14.98) of the stock's PBR. The DOI comment letter notes that 4 serious injuries (0.8 manatee per year) were reported from 2008-2012, which brings annual M/SI to 5% of PBR (0.8/14.98).

Comment 10: DOI recommends NMFS consider adding the Inland Coastal Georgia, Northeastern Coastal Florida bait shrimp trawl fishery as a Category III fishery on the LOF. During the period from 1989 to 2005, four manatees were killed in the Inland Coastal Georgia, Northeastern Coastal Florida bait shrimp trawl fishery. There have been no Florida manatee mortalities or serious injuries in this fishery since 2005.

Response: The Inland Coastal Georgia, Northeastern Coastal Florida bait shrimp fishery is categorized as part of the Southeastern U.S. Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico shrimp trawl fishery on the List of Fisheries. NMFS appreciates and notes the specific mortality and serious injury data. Since no mortalities or serious injuries have been documented in the most recent five-year period (2007-2011), the Florida stock of West Indian manatees will not be added to the list of species or stocks incidentally killed or injured by the Southeastern U.S. Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico shrimp trawl fishery.

NMFS updates the estimated number of vessels/persons in the “WA salmon purse seine” fishery from 440 to 75.

NMFS updates the estimated number of vessels/persons in the “WA salmon reef net” fishery from 53 to 11.

NMFS corrects a typographical error and removes West Indian manatee (FL) from the list of species/stock incidentally killed or injured in the “Southeastern U.S. Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico shrimp trawl” fishery.

The following summarizes changes to the LOF for 2014 in the estimated number of vessels/persons in a particular fishery and the species or stocks that are incidentally killed or injured in a particular fishery. The LOF for 2014 has no changes to fishery classifications or to fisheries that are subject to a take reduction plan. The classifications and definitions of U.S. commercial fisheries for 2014 are identical to those provided in the LOF for 2013 with the changes discussed below. State and regional abbreviations used in the following paragraphs include: AK (Alaska), CA (California), DE (Delaware), FL (Florida), GMX (Gulf of Mexico), HI (Hawaii), MA (Massachusetts), ME (Maine), NC (North Carolina), NY (New York), OR (Oregon), RI (Rhode Island), SC (South Carolina), VA (Virginia), WA (Washington), and WNA (Western North Atlantic).

NMFS updates the estimated number of vessels/persons in the commercial fisheries operating in the Pacific Ocean as follows:

NMFS updates the estimated number of vessels/persons in the “CA thresher shark/swordfish drift gillnet (≥14 in mesh)” fishery from 25 to 19.

NMFS updates the estimated number of vessels/persons in the “CA spot prawn pot” fishery from 27 to 28.

NMFS updates the estimated number of vessels/persons in the “CA Dungeness crab pot” fishery from 534 to 570.

NMFS updates the estimated number of vessels/persons in the “CA pelagic longline” fishery from 6 to 1.

NMFS updates the estimated number of vessels/persons in the “CA coonstripe shrimp, rock crab, tanner crab pot/trap” fishery from 305 to 203.

NMFS updates the estimated number vessels/persons in the “CA spiny lobster trap” fishery from 225 to 198.

NMFS updates the list of species or stocks incidentally killed or injured by commercial fisheries operating in the Pacific Ocean as follows:

NMFS adds minke whale (CA/OR/WA stock) to the list of species/stocks incidentally killed or injured in the “CA thresher shark and swordfish drift gillnet” fishery.

NMFS adds grey whale (Eastern North Pacific) to the list of species/stocks incidentally killed or injured in the “Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands crab pot” fishery.

NMFS changes the false killer whale stock name from “HI Insular” to “MHI Insular” on the list of species/stocks incidentally killed or injured in the “HI deep-set (tuna target) longline” fishery and removes the superscript “1” to indicate the stock is no longer driving the fishery's Category I classification.

NMFS adds sperm whale (HI stock) to the list of species/stocks incidentally killed or injured in the “HI deep-set (tuna target) longline” fishery.

NMFS adds Blainville's beaked whale (HI stock) to the list of species/stocks incidentally killed or injured in the “HI shallow-set (swordfish target) longline” fishery.

NMFS adds Cuvier's beaked whale (unknown stock), short-finned pilot whale (unknown stock), and bottlenose dolphin (unknown stock) to the list of species/stocks incidentally killed or injured in the “American Samoa longline” fishery.

NMFS updates the list of species or stocks incidentally killed or injured by commercial fisheries operating in the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean as follows:

NMFS adds several stocks to the list of species/stocks incidentally killed or injured in the “Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean passenger vessel” fishery. NMFS adds the following bottlenose dolphin stocks: (1) Northern migratory coastal stock, (2) Southern migratory coastal stock, (3) Southern South Carolina/Georgia coastal stock, (4) Northern Florida coastal stock, (5) Central Florida coastal stock, (6) Northern North Carolina estuarine stock, (7) Northern Georgia/Southern South Carolina estuarine stock, (8) Jacksonville estuarine system stock.

NMFS adds bottlenose dolphin (Western North Atlantic offshore stock) to the list of species/stocks incidentally killed or injured in the “Gulf of Maine, U.S. Mid-Atlantic tuna, shark, swordfish hook-and-line/harpoon” fishery.

NMFS removes bottlenose dolphin (Western North Atlantic offshore stock) from the list of species/stocks incidentally killed or injured in the “Mid-Atlantic mid-water trawl” fishery.

NMFS removes: (1) Category II Western Pacific pelagic “pot vessel,” “factory mothership,” and “multipurpose vessels not elsewhere identified (NEI);” (2) Category II Pacific highly migratory species “pot vessel” and “multipurpose vessels (NEI);” (3) Category II South Pacific albacore troll “pot vessel” and “multipurpose vessels (NEI);” and (4) Category II Atlantic highly migratory species “multipurpose vessels (NEI)” fisheries from the LOF.

NMFS corrects a typographical mistake and removes the Category III “Atlantic highly migratory species purse seine” fisheries from the LOF.

NMFS updates the estimated number of HSFCA permits for commercial fisheries operating on the high seas as follows:

NMFS updates the list of species or stocks incidentally killed or injured by commercial fisheries on the high seas as follows:

NMFS removes the following “unknown” stocks from the list of species/stocks incidentally killed or injured in the Category I “Western Pacific Pelagic longline (HI Deep-set component)” fishery: bottlenose dolphin, false killer whale, pantropical spotted dolphin, Risso's dolphin, short-finned pilot whale, and striped dolphin.

NMFS adds sperm whale (HI stock) to the list of species/stocks incidentally killed or injured in the Category I “Western Pacific Pelagic longline (HI Deep-set component)” fishery.

NMFS removes the following “unknown” stocks from the list of species/stocks incidentally killed or injured in the Category II “Western Pacific Pelagic longline (HI Shallow-set component)” fishery: bottlenose dolphin, Kogia sp. whale (pygmy or dwarf sperm whale), Risso's dolphin, short-finned pilot whale, and striped dolphin.

NMFS adds false killer whale (HI Pelagic stock), short-beaked common dolphin (CA/OR/WA), and Blainville's beaked whale (HI stock) to the list of species/stocks incidentally killed or injured in the Category II “Western Pacific Pelagic longline (HI Shallow-set component)” fishery.

NMFS corrects a typographical error and removes pygmy sperm whale (WNA stock) from the list of species/stocks incidentally killed or injured in the “Atlantic Highly Migratory Species longline” fishery.

The following tables set forth the list of U.S. commercial fisheries according to their classification under section 118 of the MMPA. Table 1 lists commercial fisheries in the Pacific Ocean (including Alaska); Table 2 lists commercial fisheries in the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean; Table 3 lists commercial fisheries on the high seas; and Table 4 lists fisheries affected by TRPs or TRTs.

In Tables 1 and 2, the estimated number of vessels or persons participating in fisheries operating within U.S. waters is expressed in terms of the number of active participants in the fishery, when possible. If this information is not available, the estimated number of vessels or persons licensed for a particular fishery is provided. If no recent information is available on the number of participants, vessels, or persons licensed in a fishery, then the number from the most recent LOF is used for the estimated number of vessels or persons in the fishery. NMFS acknowledges that, in some cases, these estimations may be inflations of actual effort, such as for many of the Mid-Atlantic and New England fisheries. However, in these cases, the numbers represent the potential effort for each fishery, given the multiple gear types for which several state permits may allow. Changes made to Mid-Atlantic and New England fishery participants will not affect observer coverage or bycatch estimates as observer coverage and bycatch estimates are based on vessel trip reports and landings data. Table 1 and 2 serve to provide a description of the fishery's potential effort (state and Federal). If NMFS is able to extract more accurate information on the gear types used by state permit holders in the future, the numbers will be updated to reflect this change. For additional information on fishing effort in fisheries found on Table 1 or 2, contact the relevant regional office (contact information included above in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION ).

For high seas fisheries, Table 3 lists the number of currently valid HSFCA permits held. Although this likely overestimates the number of active participants in many of these fisheries, the number of valid HSFCA permits is the most reliable data on the potential effort in high seas fisheries at this time. As noted previously in this rule, the number of HSFCA permits listed in Table 3 for the high seas components of fisheries that also operate within U.S. waters does not necessarily represent additional effort that is not accounted for in Tables 1 and 2. Many vessels/persons holding HSFCA permits also fishing within U.S. waters and are included in the number of vessels and participants operating within those fisheries in Tables 1 and 2.

Tables 1, 2, and 3 also list the marine mammal species or stocks incidentally killed or injured (seriously or non-seriously) in each fishery based on observer data, logbook data, stranding reports, disentanglement network data, and MMAP reports. The best available scientific information included in these reports is based on data through 2011. This list includes all species or stocks known to be injured or killed in a given fishery but also includes species or stocks for which there are anecdotal records of a mortality or injury. Additionally, species identified by logbook entries, stranding data, or fishermen self-reports (i.e., MMAP reports) may not be verified. In Tables 1 and 2, NMFS has designated those stocks driving a fishery's classification (i.e., the fishery is classified based on mortalities and serious injuries and of a marine mammal stock that are greater than or equal to 50 percent [Category I], or greater than 1 percent and less than 50 percent [Category II], of a stock's PBR) by a “ 1 ” after the stock's name.

In Tables 1 and 2, there are several fisheries classified as Category II that have no recent documented mortalities and injuries of marine mammals, or fisheries that did not result in a mortality or serious injury rate greater than 1 percent of a stock's PBR level based on known interactions. NMFS has classified these fisheries by analogy to other Category I or II fisheries that use similar fishing techniques or gear that are known to cause mortality or serious injury of marine mammals, as discussed in the final LOF for 1996 (60 FR 67063, December 28, 1995), and according to factors listed in the definition of a “Category II fishery” in 50 CFR 229.2 (i.e., fishing techniques, gear used, methods used to deter marine mammals, target species, seasons and areas fished, qualitative data from logbooks or fisher reports, stranding data, and the species and distribution of marine mammals in the area). NMFS has designated those fisheries listed by analogy in Tables 1 and 2 by a “ 2 ” after the fishery's name.

There are several fisheries in Tables 1, 2, and 3 in which a portion of the fishing vessels cross the EEZ boundary and therefore operate both within U.S. waters and on the high seas. These fisheries, though listed separately between Table 1 or 2 and Table 3, are considered the same fishery on either side of the EEZ boundary. NMFS has designated those fisheries in each table by a “*” after the fishery's name.

The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA) at the proposed rule stage that this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. No comments were received on that certification, and no new information has been discovered to change that conclusion. Accordingly, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required, and none has been prepared.

This rule contains collection-of-information requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act. The collection of information for the registration of individuals under the MMPA has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under OMB control number 0648-0293 (0.15 hours per report for new registrants and 0.09 hours per report for renewals). The requirement for reporting marine mammal mortalities or injuries has been approved by OMB under OMB control number 0648-0292 (0.15 hours per report). These estimates include the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding these reporting burden estimates or any other aspect of the collections of information, including suggestions for reducing burden, to NMFS and OMB (see ADDRESSES and SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION ).

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number.

This rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866.

An environmental assessment (EA) was prepared under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for regulations to implement section 118 of the MMPA in June 1995. NMFS revised that EA relative to classifying U.S. commercial fisheries on the LOF in December 2005. The 1995 EA, 2005 EA, and 2014 EA concluded that implementation of MMPA section 118 regulations would not have a significant impact on the human environment. This rule would not make any significant change in the management of reclassified fisheries; therefore, this rule is not expected to change the analysis or conclusion of the 2014 EA. If NMFS takes a management action, for example, through the development of a TRP, NMFS would first prepare an environmental document, as required under NEPA, specific to that action.

This rule will not affect species listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) or their associated critical habitat. The impacts of numerous fisheries have been analyzed in various biological opinions, and this rule will not affect the conclusions of those opinions. The classification of fisheries on the LOF is not considered to be a management action that would adversely affect threatened or endangered species. If NMFS takes a management action, for example, through the development of a TRP, NMFS would consult under ESA section 7 on that action.

This rule will have no adverse impacts on marine mammals and may have a positive impact on marine mammals by improving knowledge of marine mammals and the fisheries interacting with marine mammals through information collected from observer programs, stranding and sighting data, or take reduction teams.

This rule will not affect the land or water uses or natural resources of the coastal zone, as specified under section 307 of the Coastal Zone Management Act.

NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the BSAI according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens 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.

In accordance with § 679.22(a)(7)(i)(C)( 2 ), the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator), has determined that 113 metric tons of Pacific cod have been caught by catcher vessels less than 60 feet (18.3 m) LOA using jig or hook-and-line gear in the Bogoslof exemption area described at § 679.22(a)(7)(i)(C)( 1 ). Consequently, the Regional Administrator is prohibiting directed fishing for Pacific cod by catcher vessels less than 60 feet (18.3 m) LOA using jig or hook-and-line gear in the Bogoslof Pacific cod exemption area.

After the effective date of this closure the maximum retainable amounts at § 679.20(e) and (f) apply at any time during a trip.

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) and § 679.25(c)(1)(ii) 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 directed fishery closure of Pacific cod by catcher vessels less than 60 feet (18.3 m) LOA using jig or hook-and-line gear in the Bogoslof Pacific cod exemption area. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of March 10, 2014.

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 § 679.22 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the GOA 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 Magnuson-Stevens 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 A season allowance of the 2014 Pacific cod total allowable catch (TAC) apportioned to catcher vessels less than 50 feet (15.2 m) LOA using hook-and-line gear in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA is 3,636 metric tons (mt), as established by the final 2014 and 2015 harvest specifications for groundfish of the GOA (79 FR 12890, March 26, 2014).

In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(i), the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator) has determined that the A season allowance of the 2014 Pacific cod TAC apportioned to catcher vessels less than 50 feet (15.2 m) LOA using hook-and-line gear in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA will soon be reached. Therefore, the Regional Administrator is establishing a directed fishing allowance of 3,486 mt and is setting aside the remaining 150 mt as bycatch to support other anticipated groundfish fisheries. In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(iii), the Regional Administrator finds that this directed fishing allowance has been reached. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for Pacific cod by catcher vessels less than 50 feet (15.2 m) LOA using hook-and-line gear in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA. After the effective date of this closure the maximum retainable amounts at § 679.20(e) and (f) apply at any time during a trip.

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 directed fishing closure of Pacific cod for catcher vessels less than 50 feet (15.2 m) LOA using hook-and-line gear in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of March 10, 2014.

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.