Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 195 / Friday, October 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 62323 

Dated: September 23, 2010. 

A. Popiel, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Sector North Carolina. 

[FR Doc. 2010–25380 Filed 10–7–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2010–0604–201046; FRL– 

9212–2] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Atlanta, 

GA; Notice of Completeness 

Determination for the Purpose of 

Stopping Sanctions Clock 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of Letter to Governor 

Regarding Completeness and Stopping 

of Sanctions Clock. 

SUMMARY: EPA is now giving notice of 

an action that EPA has already taken to 

find a State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revision complete and stop the 

sanctions clocks associated with the 

Atlanta, Georgia, 1997 fine particulate 

matter (PM2.5) national ambient air 

quality standards (NAAQS) 

nonattainment area (hereafter referred to 

as the ‘‘Atlanta Area’’). Pursuant to the 

Clean Air Act (CAA) and its 

implementing regulations, EPA has 

made an affirmative determination of 

completeness for the attainment 

demonstration, reasonably available 

control measures and reasonably 

available control technology, annual 

emissions reductions to ensure 

reasonable further progress, and 

contingency measures (hereafter 

referred to as ‘‘nonattainment area 

submittals’’) submitted by the State of 

Georgia for the Atlanta Area. On 

September 3, 2010, a letter announcing 

this determination was sent to the 

Governor of Georgia, effectively 

stopping the sanctions clocks started on 

November 27, 2009, by ‘‘a finding of 

failure to submit’’ the 1997 PM2.5

nonattainment submittals for the 

Atlanta Area. Today’s notice is simply 

an announcement of a determination 

that EPA has already made. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket 

Identification No. EPA–R04–OAR– 

2010–0604. All documents in the docket 

are listed on the www.regulations.gov 

Web site. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, i.e., Confidential Business 

Information or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Regulatory Development Section, 

Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and 

Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. EPA 

requests that if at all possible, you 

contact the person listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

schedule your inspection. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., excluding federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joel 

Huey or Sara Waterson, Regulatory 

Development Section, Air Planning 

Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics 

Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. The 

telephone number is (404) 562–9104. 

Mr. Huey can also be reached via 

electronic mail at huey.joel@epa.gov. 

Ms. Waterson may be reached by phone 

at (404) 562–9061 or via electronic mail 

at waterson.sara@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Effective 

April 5, 2005, the Atlanta Area was 

designated nonattainment for the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS. The Atlanta Area is 

comprised of Barrow, Bartow, Carroll, 

Cherokee, Clayton, Cobb, Coweta, 

DeKalb, Douglas, Fayette, Forsyth, 

Fulton, Gwinnett, Hall, Henry, Newton, 

Paulding, Rockdale, Spalding, and 

Walton Counties and portions of Heard 

and Putnam Counties. For the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS, the State of Georgia was 

required to submit nonattainment area 

submittals by April 5, 2008. On 

November 27, 2009, EPA published a 

finding of failure to submit final 

rulemaking for the required SIPs (74 FR 

62251). 

On July 6, 2010, Georgia submitted all 

components for the nonattainment area 

submittals for the Atlanta Area. EPA has 

done a completeness review, in 

accordance with Section 2.0 ‘‘Criteria’’ of 

Appendix V of 40 CFR part 51—Criteria 

for Determining the Completeness of 

Plan Submissions, to ensure that the 

State has submitted all of the required 

information for the SIP submission. 

As explained in the letter sent by EPA 

to the Governor of Georgia, on 

September 3, 2010, EPA has determined 

that the State has corrected the 

deficiency identified in EPA’s 

promulgated finding of failure to submit 

the required nonattainment area SIP 

submittals for the Atlanta Area. 

Specifically, EPA has determined that 

Georgia has submitted complete SIP 

submittals for the Atlanta Area to meet 

the CAA requirement for a 

nonattainment area under the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA will make a 

determination on the approvability of 

the nonattainment area submittals for 

the Atlanta Area in a separate action. 

Today’s announcement only relates to a 

completeness determination for the 

nonattainment area submittals for the 

Atlanta Area, and is separate from EPA’s 

determination of approvability of these 

submittals. Today’s action is simply a 

notice of a determination that EPA 

already made through correspondence 

with the Governor of Georgia. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Dated: September 28, 2010. 

Gwendolyn Keyes Fleming, 

Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2010–25465 Filed 10–7–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 156 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2005–0327; FRL–8848–8] 

RIN 2070–AJ74 

Pesticide Management and Disposal; 

Standards for Pesticide Containers 

and Containment; Change to Labeling 

Compliance Date 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is amending the 

pesticide container and containment 

regulations to provide an 8-month 

extension of the labeling compliance 

date from December 16, 2010 to August 

16, 2011. This change is being made to 

provide additional time for pesticide 

registrants to revise labels to bring them 

into compliance with the regulations 

and for EPA and states to review and 

approve the revised labels. 

DATES: This final rule is effective 

December 7, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under docket 

identification (ID) number EPA–HQ– 

OPP–2005–0327. All documents in the 

docket are listed in the docket index 

available at http://www.regulations.gov. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
62324 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 195 / Friday, October 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

e.g., Confidential Business Information 

(CBI) or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available in the electronic docket at 

http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only 

available in hard copy, at the OPP 

Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S– 

4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 

2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The 

Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. 

to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding legal holidays. The Docket 

Facility telephone number is (703) 305– 

5805. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Nancy Fitz, Field and External Affairs 

Division (FEAD) (7506P), Office of 

Pesticide Programs, Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460– 

0001; telephone number: (703) 305– 

7385; fax number: (703) 308–2962; 

e-mail address: fitz.nancy@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Does this action apply to me? 

You may be potentially affected by 

this action if you are a pesticide 

formulator. Potentially affected entities 

may include, but are not limited to: 

• Pesticide formulators (NAICS code 

32532), e.g., establishments that 

formulate and prepare insecticides, 

fungicides, herbicides, antimicrobials or 

other pesticides from technical 

chemicals or concentrates produced by 

pesticide manufacturing establishments. 

This listing is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

affected by this action. Other types of 

entities not listed in this unit could also 

be affected. The North American 

Industrial Classification System 

(NAICS) codes have been provided to 

assist you and others in determining 

whether this action might apply to 

certain entities. If you have any 

questions regarding the applicability of 

this action to a particular entity, consult 

the person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. 

II. Background 

On August 16, 2006, EPA 

promulgated a final rule titled ‘‘Pesticide 

Management and Disposal; Standards 

for Pesticide Containers and 

Containment’’ (71 FR 47330) (container 

and containment rule), establishing 40 

CFR part 165 and amending 40 CFR part 

156. The container and containment 

rule established regulations for the safe 

storage and disposal of pesticides to 

reduce the likelihood of unreasonable 

adverse effects on human health and the 

environment. The container and 

containment regulations include 

requirements for pesticide container 

design; procedures, standards, and label 

language to facilitate removal of 

pesticides from containers prior to their 

being reused, recycled, or discarded; 

and requirements for containment of 

stationary pesticide containers and 

procedures for container refilling 

operations. The 2006 rule required that 

all pesticide products distributed or 

sold by a registrant as of August 16, 

2009, bear labels that comply with the 

rule’s label language requirements (40 

CFR 156.159). On October 29, 2008, 

EPA promulgated a final rule that made 

various amendments to the container 

and containment rule, including 

extending the original labeling 

compliance date from August 16, 2009 

to August 16, 2010. 

On June 15, 2010 (75 FR 33705), EPA 

promulgated a final rule that extended 

the labeling compliance date from 

August 16, 2010 to December 16, 2010 

to avoid the temporary removal of a 

significant number of pesticides from 

the market while a 1-year extension 

proposal moves through the rulemaking 

process and while pesticide registrants 

work to update pesticide labels to 

comply with the labeling requirements 

in the container and containment 

regulations and EPA and states work to 

review and approve those revised labels. 

Also on June 15, 2010 (75 FR 33744), 

EPA published a proposed rule to 

provide a 1-year extension of the 

labeling compliance date from August 

16, 2010 to August 16, 2011 to address 

concerns raised by stakeholders and as 

a result of further Agency consideration. 

The public comment period for this 

proposed rule closed on July 15, 2010. 

EPA received five comments from trade 

associations and a pesticide registrant. 

Four of the comments supported the 

proposed 1-year extension while one 

comment, submitted by a trade 

association, supported a longer 

extension of 18 months to 2 years. 

III. What is the Agency’s authority for 

taking this action? 

These final regulations are issued 

pursuant to the authority given the 

Administrator of EPA in sections 2 

through 34 of the Federal Insecticide, 

Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act 

(FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. 136–136y. Sections 

19(e) and (f) of FIFRA, 7 U.S.C. 136a(e) 

and (f), grant EPA broad authority to 

establish standards and procedures to 

assure the safe use, reuse, storage, and 

disposal of pesticide containers. FIFRA 

section 19(e) requires EPA to 

promulgate regulations for the design of 

pesticide containers that will promote 

the safe storage and disposal of 

pesticides. FIFRA section 19(f) requires 

EPA to promulgate regulations 

prescribing procedures and standards 

for the removal of pesticides from 

containers prior to disposal. FIFRA 

section 25(a), 7 U.S.C. 136w(a), 

authorizes EPA to issue regulations to 

carry out provisions of FIFRA. 

IV. What action is the Agency taking? 

EPA is amending the pesticide 

container and containment regulations 

to provide an 8-month extension of the 

labeling compliance date (40 CFR 

156.159) from December 16, 2010 to 

August 16, 2011. This change is being 

made to provide additional time for 

pesticide registrants to revise labels to 

bring them into compliance with the 

regulations and for EPA and states to 

review and approve the revised labels. 

As discussed in the June 15, 2010 

proposed rule, EPA concluded that 

there was not sufficient time to change 

all labels by August 2010 because of 

several factors, including: 

1. More antimicrobial products labels 

than expected require alterative rinsing 

instructions, so the label amendments 

cannot be made by notification and 

require more in depth reviews by EPA; 

2. EPA’s position on the appropriate 

container-related statements 

(particularly rinsing and treatment of 

rinsate) for certain pesticides has 

changed over time as a result of 

experience with product-by-product 

label reviews; and 

3. The length of time for states to 

review and approve labels is understood 

to be increasing due to the furlough 

days for staff in some states and staffing 

reductions due to budget shortfalls in 

others. 

Since registrants can decide which 

registered products they wish to market 

at any given time, the Agency does not 

have a precise count of the total number 

of label changes that ultimately will be 

submitted to EPA for review. However, 

based upon a review of Agency actions 

through May 2010 and discussions with 

registrants, EPA estimates that the 

majority of label changes have already 

been submitted and approved. On the 

other hand, EPA estimates that there 

were at least 1,000, and potentially 

several thousand, remaining pesticide 

product labels that EPA still needed to 

review. Even taking into account the 

applications that have already been 

submitted, there is not enough time for 

the necessary label changes to be 

approved by EPA, then submitted to and 

approved by the states, printed, and 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 195 / Friday, October 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 62325 

applied to all products that will be 

released for shipment after August 16, 

2010. 

Because EPA contributed to the large 

number of outstanding label changes, 

EPA is extending the compliance date in 

40 CFR 156.159 by a total of 1 year, so 

that pesticide products released for 

shipment by a registrant after August 16, 

2011 would have to bear a label that 

complies with the container 

requirements. EPA continues to believe 

that one additional year will provide 

enough time for EPA and the states to 

review the label changes and for 

registrants to incorporate the changes 

into their labels, provided that the 

outstanding applications were 

submitted in a timely fashion. 

Beginning in April 2010 and repeated in 

the June 15, 2010 Federal Register 

notices, EPA encouraged pesticide 

registrants to submit applications for 

label changes for their products prior to 

the previous deadline of August 16, 

2010. EPA said that the Agency would 

give priority to applications submitted 

prior to August 16, 2010 and that 

applications submitted after August 16, 

2010 would be processed on a nonpriority basis only after all applications 

submitted prior to that date have been 

processed. 

EPA disagrees with the commenter 

who argued for an 18-month to 2-year 

extension. This commenter said a longer 

extension is necessary to avoid an 

interruption in the supply of 

antimicrobial products because of ‘‘the 

need for these products for public 

health and the industrial economy, the 

need for particularized language for 

antimicrobial pesticides necessitating 

amendment instead of notification, the 

potential for multiple review cycles, the 

significant workload facing the EPA, 

and state pesticide registration 

agencies.’’ 

Based on an evaluation of the 

resources and time it would take for 

EPA to undertake a concerted effort to 

complete the review of these remaining 

labels and discussions with State 

regulatory agencies who estimated a 

range of 3 to 6 months for them to 

review and approve the label revisions, 

EPA continues to believe that label 

changes that were submitted by August 

16, 2010 will be reviewed by EPA and 

states in sufficient time to allow the 

registrants to make the necessary 

changes in their labels in time to 

comply with the revised compliance 

date of August 16, 2011. The number of 

pesticide product labels submitted by 

the August 16, 2010 deadline is 

comparable to the average number of 

label changes that have been reviewed, 

approved and changed over each of the 

past few years. Therefore, EPA believes 

that EPA, states and registrants can 

readily accomplish the steps necessary 

in order for the affected products to be 

in compliance with the pesticide 

container and containment regulations 

by August 16, 2011. 

EPA believes that a longer extension 

is unjustified because registrants have 

had a reasonable amount of time to 

prepare and submit their label 

modification requests. The rule was 

published over 4 years ago and EPA has 

already extended the deadline by 1 year 

and 4 months. The prior extension was 

based on EPA’s concern that without an 

extension, the prior compliance date of 

August 16, 2010 could temporarily 

remove from the market a significant 

number of pesticides important to the 

protection of public health and the 

nation’s food supply, without 

comparable benefits to public health or 

the environment. Extending the 

compliance date to August 2011 was 

expected to allow time for the labels of 

the vast majority of these products to 

work through the review and revision 

process so there should not be a 

significant number of non-compliant 

products by August 16, 2011. While the 

number of non-compliant products is 

still significant, the number of 

applications submitted and processed to 

date gives EPA confidence that users 

will have adequate access to compliant 

products by August 16, 2011. 

EPA continues to believe that the 

pesticide container labeling 

requirements serve important roles in 

the management of pesticide risks, as 

explained in the August 16, 2006, 

pesticide container and containment 

final rule (71 FR 47330). Absent 

compelling competing public interests, 

EPA believes that it is essential for the 

labels to clearly identify containers as 

nonrefillable containers or refillable 

containers by August 16, 2011 when 

compliance is required with the 

refillable container and repackaging 

requirements. Having the label identify 

a container as a refillable container is 

essential to the successful 

implementation of the refillable 

container and repackaging regulations. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

This action only amends an existing 

regulation to extend the current 

compliance date, it does not otherwise 

amend or impose any other 

requirements. As such, this action is not 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) as a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

Executive Order 12866, entitled 

Regulatory Planning and Review (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993). Nor does it 

impose or change any information 

collection burden that requires 

additional review by OMB under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). The 

information collection activities 

contained in the regulations are already 

approved under OMB control number 

2070–0133 (EPA ICR No. 1632). An 

agency may not conduct or sponsor, and 

a person is not required to respond to 

a collection of information unless it 

displays a currently valid OMB control 

number. The OMB control numbers for 

EPA’s regulations in 40 CFR are listed 

in 40 CFR part 9. 

Pursuant to section 605(b) of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the Agency hereby 

certifies that this final rule does not 

have a significant adverse economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. The extension of the 

compliance date is not expected to have 

any adverse economic impacts on 

affected entities, regardless of their size. 

The factual basis for the Agency’s 

determination is presented in the 2006 

addendum to the economic analysis, a 

copy of which is available in the docket 

for this rulemaking. In general, EPA 

strives to minimize potential adverse 

impacts on small entities when 

developing regulations to achieve the 

environmental and human health 

protection goals of the statute and the 

Agency. EPA solicits comments 

specifically about potential small 

business impacts. 

State, local, and tribal governments 

are rarely pesticide applicants or 

registrants, so this final rule is not 

expected to affect these governments. 

Accordingly, pursuant to Title II of the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538), EPA has 

determined that this action is not 

subject to the requirements in sections 

202 and 205 because it does not contain 

a Federal mandate that may result in 

expenditures of $100 million or more 

for State, local, and tribal governments, 

in the aggregate, or for the private sector 

in any one year. In addition, this action 

does not significantly or uniquely affect 

small governments or impose a 

significant intergovernmental mandate, 

as described in sections 203 and 204 of 

UMRA. For the same reasons, EPA has 

determined that this final rule does not 

have ‘‘federalism implications’’ as 

specified in Executive Order 13132, 

entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999), because it would 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 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
62326 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 195 / Friday, October 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in the 

Order. Thus, Executive Order 13132 

does not apply to this final rule. Nor 

does it have ‘‘tribal implications’’ as 

specified in Executive Order 13175, 

entitled Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 

22951, November 9, 2000). EPA is not 

aware of any tribal governments which 

are pesticide registrants. Thus, 

Executive Order 13175 does not apply 

to this action. 

Since this action is not economically 

significant under Executive Order 

12866, it is not subject to Executive 

Order 13045, entitled Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997), and Executive Order 

13211, entitled Actions Concerning 

Regulations that Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (66 

FR 28355, May 22, 2001). In addition, 

EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 

as applying only to those regulatory 

actions that concern health or safety 

risks, which is not the case in this final 

rule. 

This action does not involve technical 

standards that would require the 

consideration of voluntary consensus 

standards pursuant to section 12(d) of 

the National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 

272). 

This action does not have an adverse 

impact on the environmental and health 

conditions in low-income and minority 

communities. Therefore, this action 

does not involve special consideration 

of environmental justice related issues 

as specified in Executive Order 12898, 

entitled Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income 

Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 

1994). 

VI. FIFRA Mandated Reviews 

In accordance with FIFRA section 

25(a) and (d), the Agency submitted a 

draft of this final rule to the Committee 

on Agriculture in the House of 

Representatives, the Committee on 

Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry in 

the United States Senate, the Secretary 

of Agriculture, and the FIFRA Scientific 

Advisory Panel (SAP). The SAP and the 

Secretary of Agriculture waived review 

of this final rule. 

VII. Congressional Review Act 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

Agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report to each House of 

the Congress and 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. This rule is not a ‘‘major rule’’ 

as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 156 

Environmental protection, Labeling, 

Pesticides and pests. 

Dated: September 29, 2010. 

Lisa P. Jackson, 

Administrator. 

■ Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is 

amended as follows: 

PART 156—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 156 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136 through 136y. 

■ 2. Revise § 156.159 to read as follows: 

§ 156.159 Compliance date. 

Any pesticide product released for 

shipment by a registrant after August 16, 

2011 must bear a label that complies 

with §§ 156.10(d)(7), 156.10(f), 

156.10(i)(2)(ix), 156.140, 156.144, 

156.146 and 156.156. 

[FR Doc. 2010–25425 Filed 10–7–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 600 

[Docket No. 100330171–0388–02] 

RIN 0648–AY79 

Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; 

Fishing Capacity Reduction 

Framework 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: NMFS amends the framework 

regulations specifying procedures for 

implementing fishing capacity 

reduction programs (reduction 

programs) in accordance with the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management 

(Magnuson-Stevens) Reauthorization 

Act of 2007. A reduction program pays 

harvesters in a fishery that has more 

vessels than capacity either to surrender 

their fishing permits including relevant 

fishing histories for that fishery, or 

surrender all their fishing permits and 

cancel their fishing vessels’ fishing 

endorsements by permanently 

withdrawing the vessel from all 

fisheries. The cost of the program can be 

paid by post-reduction harvesters, 

taxpayers, or others. The intent of a 

program is to decrease the number of 

harvesters in the fishery, increase the 

economic efficiency of harvesting, and 

facilitate the conservation and 

management of fishery resources in each 

fishery in which NMFS conducts a 

reduction program. 

DATES: This final rule is effective 

November 8, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Copies of the Regulatory 

Impact Review prepared for this action 

may be obtained from Michael A. 

Sturtevant, Financial Services Division, 

NMFS–MB5, 1315 East-West Highway, 

Silver Spring, MD 20910. 

Send comments regarding the burdenhour estimates or other aspects of the 

collection-of-information requirements 

contained in this rule to Michael A. 

Sturtevant at the above address and also 

to the Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs, Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB), 

Washington, DC 20503 (Attention: 

NOAA Desk Officer) or e-mail to 

OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov, or fax 

to (202) 395–7825. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael A. Sturtevant at 301–713–2390 

or michael.a.sturtevant@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Electronic Access 

This Federal Register document is 

also accessible via the Internet at 

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr. 

I. Statutory and Regulatory Background 

Many U.S. fisheries have excess 

fishing capacity. Excess fishing capacity 

decreases earnings, complicates 

management, and imperils conservation. 

To provide for fishing capacity 

reduction programs, in 1996 Congress 

amended the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

(Magnuson-Stevens Act) by adding 

section 312(b)–(e) (16 U.S.C. 1861a(b)– 

(e)). The framework regulations to 

conduct these reduction programs were 

published as an interim final rule on 

May 18, 2000 (65 FR 31430) and 

codified as subpart L to 50 CFR part 

600. To finance reduction costs, 

Congress amended Title XI of the 

Merchant Marine Act, 1936 (Title XI), 

by adding new sections 1111 and 1112. 

The Title XI provisions involving 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES