Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 20727 

Inert ingredients Limits Uses 

*******

2-Ethyl-1-hexanol (CAS Reg. No. 104–76–7) .. Not more than 10% of pesticide ....................... Solvent adjuvant of surfactants. 

* * * * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2012–8195 Filed 4–5–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Federal Emergency Management 

Agency 

44 CFR Part 65 

[Docket ID FEMA–2011–0002] 

Changes in Flood Elevation 

Determinations 

Correction 

In rule document 2011–33772 

appearing on pages 423–425 in the issue 

of Thursday, January 5, 2012 make the 

following correction: 

§ 65.4 [Corrected] 

On page 425, in the table, in the 

column ‘‘Chief executive officer of 

community’’, on the 10th line, ‘‘Mr. 

Robert Hyatt Davidson, County 

Manager’’ should read ‘‘Mr. Robert 

Hyatt, Davidson County Manager’’. 

[FR Doc. C1–2011–33772 Filed 4–5–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1505–01–D 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Federal Emergency Management 

Agency 

44 CFR Part 65 

[Docket ID FEMA–2011–0002; Internal 

Agency Docket No. FEMA–B–1219] 

Changes in Flood Elevation 

Determinations 

Correction 

In rule document 2011–25157 

appearing on pages 60748–60751 in the 

issue of Friday, September 30, 2011, 

make the following corrections: 

§ 65.4 [Corrected] 

1. In the table appearing on page 

60750, in the column titled ‘‘Chief 

executive officer of the community’’, the 

eighth entry from the bottom of the 

page, ‘‘199 Town Center, Parkway 

Spring Hill, TN 37174’’ should read 

‘‘199 Town Center Parkway, Spring Hill, 

TN 37174’’. 

2. In the table appearing on page 

60750, the last entry in the column 

titled ‘‘Chief executive officer of the 

community’’, ‘‘301 West 2nd Street, 2nd 

Floor Austin, Texas 78701’’ should read 

‘‘301 West 2nd Street, 2nd Floor, 

Austin, Texas 78701’’. 

[FR Doc. C1–2011–25157 Filed 4–5–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1505–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

46 CFR Parts 2, 24, 30, 70, 90, 91, and 

188 

[Docket No. USCG–2011–0363] 

RIN 1625–AB71 

Seagoing Barges 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Direct final rule; withdrawal. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is 

withdrawing its direct final rule 

published on December 14, 2011. The 

direct final rule notified the public of 

the Coast Guard’s intent to revise 

regulations for the inspection and 

certification of seagoing barges to align 

with the language of the applicable 

statutes. We are withdrawing that rule 

because we received two adverse 

comments. That rule will not become 

effective as scheduled. Instead, we plan 

to consider these issues in a notice of 

proposed rulemaking. 

DATES: The direct final rule published 

December 14, 2011, (76 FR 77712), is 

withdrawn on April 6, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: The docket for this 

withdrawn rulemaking is available for 

inspection or copying at the Docket 

Management Facility (M–30), U.S. 

Department of Transportation, West 

Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 

Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. You may also 

find this docket on the Internet by going 

to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting 

USCG–2011–0363 in the ‘‘Keyword’’ 

box, and then clicking ‘‘Search.’’ 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions about this notice, 

call or email Mr. Ken Smith, U.S. Coast 

Guard, telephone 202–372–1413, email 

Ken.A.Smith@uscg.mil. If you have 

questions on viewing material in the 

docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program 

Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 

202–366–9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On December 14, 2011, we published 

a direct final rule entitled ‘‘Seagoing 

Barges’’ in the Federal Register (76 FR 

77712). That rule would have redefined 

‘‘seagoing barge’’ in 46 CFR parts 90 and 

91 and would have revised 46 CFR parts 

2, 24, 30, 70, 90, 91, and 188 to exempt 

specified seagoing barges from 

inspection and certification to align 

Coast Guard regulations with the 

language of the applicable statutes. 

In 1983, section 2101(32), Public Law 

98–89, 97 Stat. 500 (46 U.S.C. 2101) 

redefined ‘‘seagoing barge’’ as a non 

self-propelled vessel of at least 100 gross 

tons making voyages beyond the 

Boundary Line. Coast Guard regulations 

at 46 CFR 91.01–10(c) do not reflect the 

language change and instead refer to 

seagoing barges as vessels ‘‘on the high 

seas or ocean.’’ The withdrawn rule 

would have changed the language in 46 

CFR 91.01–10 from ‘‘on the high seas or 

ocean’’ to ‘‘beyond the Boundary Line’’ 

to reflect the language of Public Law 98– 

89. 

In 1993, Congress exempted from 

inspection seagoing barges that are 

unmanned and (1) not carrying 

hazardous material as cargo, or (2) 

carrying a flammable or combustible 

liquid, including oil, in bulk. (See Coast 

Guard Authorization Act of 1993, Pub. 

L. 103–206, 107 Stat. 2419 (46 U.S.C. 

3302(m).) Also in 1993, we stopped 

requiring the specified seagoing barges 

to be inspected in compliance with 

Public Law 103–206. However, we did 

not amend our regulations to reflect the 

exemption. That withdrawn rule would 

have changed the language concerning 

seagoing barges in 46 CFR 90.05–25, and 

46 CFR 91.01–10, and in the vessel 

inspection tables in 46 CFR parts 2, 24, 

30, 70, 90, and 188, to reflect the 

exemption created by Public Law 103– 

206. 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
20728 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

We published the withdrawn rule as 

a direct final rule under 33 CFR 1.05– 

55 because we considered the rule to be 

noncontroversial and therefore did not 

expect any adverse comments. In the 

direct final rule, we notified the public 

of our intent to make the rule effective 

on April 12, 2012, unless an adverse 

comment or notice of intent to submit 

an adverse comment was received on or 

before February 13, 2012. 

We received two submissions from 

the same commenter during the 

comment period, and we determined 

that both are adverse comments, as 

explained below. As such, we are 

withdrawing the direct final rule. We 

plan to consider the issues raised in the 

adverse comments in a notice of 

proposed rulemaking. 

Withdrawal 

We received two comments in 

response to the direct final rule. In the 

first comment, the commenter stated 

that without a definition of the term ‘‘oil 

in bulk,’’ the rule would be ineffective. 

In the second comment, the commenter 

stated that without a definition of the 

term ‘‘manned,’’ the rule would be 

ineffective. In the direct final rule, we 

explained that a comment is considered 

adverse if the commenter explains why 

this rule or part of this rule would be 

inappropriate, including a challenge to 

its underlying premise or approach, or 

would be ineffective or unacceptable 

without a change. We have determined 

that both comments received are 

adverse comments. 

In the first comment, the commenter 

expressed concern that, without a 

definition of ‘‘in bulk,’’ the rule does not 

make it clear whether a barge that 

carries flammable or combustible 

liquids, including oil, in bulk for use by 

the vessel and not as cargo, is exempt 

from inspection and certification. 

Furthermore, the commenter asked at 

what quantity of such flammable or 

combustible liquid carried in bulk is the 

barge no longer considered exempt 

under the rule. The commenter also 

expressed concern that without a 

definition of ‘‘in bulk,’’ barges that carry 

flammable or combustible liquid, 

including oil, in bulk as cargo would be 

subject to inspection regardless of how 

small the quantity. 

In the second comment, the 

commenter requested a definition for 

the term ‘‘manned,’’ and stated that 

without such a definition, the rule 

would be ineffective. The commenter 

was concerned that there are times 

when barges that do not require 

manning to operate have personnel on 

board to prepare the barges for transfer 

and off-load, and that without a 

definition in the rule, it is not clear 

whether barges with personnel 

permissively on board require 

inspection or are exempt. 

Authority 

We issue this notice of withdrawal 

under the authority of 33 U.S.C. 494, 

502, 525, 33 CFR 1.05–55, and 

Department of Homeland Security 

Delegation No. 0170.1. 

Because we consider these comments 

to be adverse, we are withdrawing the 

direct final rule. We plan to seek 

comment on these concerns in a 

forthcoming notice of proposed 

rulemaking. 

J.G. Lantz, 

Director of Commercial Regulations and 

Standards, U.S. Coast Guard. 

[FR Doc. 2012–8310 Filed 4–5–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 648 

[Docket No. 111011616–2102–02] 

RIN 0648–BB51 

Fisheries of the Northeastern United 

States; Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery; 

Framework Adjustment 23 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This action approves 

Framework Adjustment 23 to the 

Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery 

Management Plan (Framework 23) and 

implements its measures. Framework 23 

was developed and adopted by the New 

England Fishery Management Council 

and includes measures to: Minimize 

impacts on sea turtles through the 

requirement of a turtle deflector dredge; 

improve the effectiveness of the scallop 

fishery’s accountability measures 

related to the yellowtail flounder annual 

catch limits; adjust the limited access 

general category Northern Gulf of Maine 

management program; and modify the 

scallop vessel monitoring system trip 

notification procedures to improve 

flexibility for the scallop fleet. 

DATES: Effective May 7, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: An environmental 

assessment (EA) was prepared for 

Framework 23 that describes the action 

and other considered alternatives and 

provides a thorough analysis of the 

impacts of these measures and 

alternatives. Copies of Framework 23, 

the EA, and the Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), are 

available upon request from Paul J. 

Howard, Executive Director, New 

England Fishery Management Council, 

50 Water Street, Newburyport, MA 

01950. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Emily Gilbert, Fishery Policy Analyst, 

978–281–9244; fax 978–281–9135. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The New England Fishery 

Management Council (Council) adopted 

Framework 23 on September 27, 2011, 

initially submitted it to NMFS on 

October 25, 2011, for review and 

approval, and submitted a revised final 

framework document on November 30, 

2011. Framework 23 includes measures 

that require vessels fishing in the 

Atlantic Sea Scallop fishery to use a 

turtle deflector dredge (TDD), including 

where, when, and to which vessels this 

TDD requirement applies. It also revises 

the current accountability measures 

(AMs) related to the yellowtail flounder 

(YTF) annual catch limits (sub-ACLs) 

for the Georges Bank (GB) and Southern 

New England/Mid-Atlantic (SNE/MA) 

YTF stock areas. These modifications 

only alter the months when a closure 

applies and do not change the locations 

for these seasonal closure AMs. 

Framework 23 also changes how scallop 

landings are applied to the Northern 

Gulf of Maine Management (NGOM) 

total allowable catch (TAC) when 

harvested by federally NGOM-permitted 

vessels. Finally, Framework 23 

implements procedural changes to when 

and where a vessel can declare a scallop 

trip through vessel monitoring systems 

(VMS). 

The Council reviewed the Framework 

23 proposed rule regulations as drafted 

by NMFS, which included regulations 

proposed by NMFS under the authority 

of section 305(d) of the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens 

Act), and deemed them to be necessary 

and consistent with section 303(c) of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act. The proposed 

rule for Framework 23 published in the 

Federal Register on January 3, 2012 (77 

FR 52), with a 15-day public comment 

period that ended January 18, 2012. 

Three comments were received on the 

proposed measures. 

The final Framework 23 management 

measures are described below. Details 

concerning the Council’s development 

of these measures were presented in the 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES