Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 180 / Friday, September 17, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 56903 

rule does not impose any enforceable 

duty or contain any unfunded mandate 

as described under Title II of the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(UMRA) (Public Law 104–4). 

This action does not involve any 

technical standards that would require 

Agency consideration of voluntary 

consensus standards pursuant to section 

12(d) of the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 

(NTTAA), Public Law 104–113, section 

12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). 

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 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 this final rule in the 

Federal Register. This final rule is not 

a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 

804(2). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Agricultural commodities, Pesticides 

and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: September 7, 2010. 

Lois Rossi, 

Director, Registration Division, Office of 

Pesticide Programs. 

■ Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is 

amended as follows: 

PART 180—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 180 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371. 

■ 2. Section 180.368 is amended as 

follows: 

■ i. In paragraph (a)(2), revise the 

introductory text; 

■ ii. In paragraph (a)(2), in the table, 

remove the commodities Garlic, bulb 

and Shallot, bulb; revise the 

commodities Onion, bulb; Onion, green; 

and Vegetable, root, except sugar beet, 

subgroup 1B; and alphabetically add the 

following commodities; 

■ iii. In paragraphs (c)(2) and (d)(2), 

revise the introductory text. 

The amendments read as follows: 

§ 180.368 Metolachlor; tolerances for 

residues. 

(a) * * * 

(2) Tolerances are established for 

residues of S-metolachlor, including its 

metabolites and degradates, in or on the 

commodity(s), as defined. Compliance 

with the tolerance levels specified in the 

following table below is to be 

determined by measuring only the sum 

of free and bound S-metolachlor, S-2- 

chloro-N-(2-ethyl-6-methylphenyl)-N-(2- 

methoxy-1-methylethyl)acetamide, its 

R-enantiomer, and its metabolites, 

determined as the derivatives, 2-(2- 

ethyl-6-methylphenyl)amino-1-propanol 

and 4-(2-ethyl-6-methylphenyl)-2- 

hydroxy-5-methyl-3-morpholinone, 

calculated as the stoichiometric 

equivalent of S-metolachlor, in or on the 

commodity. 

Commodity Parts per million 

* * * * * 

Brassica, leafy 

greens, subgroup 5B ........... 1.8 

Bushberry subgroup 13-07B .... 0.15 

Caneberry subgroup 13-07A .... 0.10 

Carrot, roots .......... 0.40 

* * * * * 

Cucumber ............. 0.13 

* * * * * 

Melon, subgroup 

9A ...................... 0.10 

* * * * * 

Okra ...................... 0.10 

Onion, bulb, subgroup 3-07A ...... 0.10 

Onion, green, subgroup 3-07B ...... 2.0 

* * * * * 

Sesame, seed ....... 0.13 

* * * * * 

Sorghum, sweet, 

stalk ................... 4.0 

* * * * * 

Turnip, greens ...... 1.8 

* * * * * 

Vegetable, root, 

except sugar 

beet, subgroup 

1B, except carrot 0.30 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(2) Tolerances with regional 

registration are established for residues 

of S-metolachlor, including its 

metabolites and degradates, in or on the 

commodities identified in the following 

table below. Compliance with the 

tolerance levels specified in the 

following table below is to be 

determined by measuring only the sum 

of free and bound S-metolachlor, S-2- 

chloro-N-(2-ethyl-6-methylphenyl)-N-(2- 

methoxy-1-methylethyl)acetamide, its 

R-enantiomer, and its metabolites, 

determined as the derivatives, 2-(2- 

ethyl-6-methylphenyl)amino-1-propanol 

and 4-(2-ethyl-6-methylphenyl)-2- 

hydroxy-5-methyl-3-morpholinone, 

calculated as the stoichiometric 

equivalent of S-metolachlor, in or on the 

commodity. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(2) Tolerances for are established for 

the indirect or inadvertent residues of Smetolachlor, including its metabolites 

and degradates, in or on the 

commodities identified in the following 

table below. Compliance with the 

tolerance levels specified in the 

following table below is to be 

determined by measuring only the sum 

of free and bound S-metolachlor, S-2- 

chloro-N-(2-ethyl-6-methylphenyl)-N-(2- 

methoxy-1-methylethyl)acetamide, its 

R-enantiomer, and its metabolites, 

determined as the derivatives, 2-(2- 

ethyl-6-methylphenyl)amino-1-propanol 

and 4-(2-ethyl-6-methylphenyl)-2- 

hydroxy-5-methyl-3-morpholinone, 

calculated as the stoichiometric 

equivalent of S-metolachlor, in or on the 

commodity. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2010–23130 Filed 9–16–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 300 

[Docket No. 100503209–0430–02] 

RIN 0648–AY85 

Pacific Halibut Fisheries; Limited 

Access for Guided Sport Charter 

Vessels in Alaska 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: NMFS issues regulations 

amending the limited access program 

for charter vessels in the guided sport 

fishery for Pacific halibut in the waters 

of International Pacific Halibut 

Commission Regulatory Area 2C 

(Southeast Alaska) and Area 3A (Central 

Gulf of Alaska). These regulations revise 

the method of assigning angler 

endorsements to charter halibut permits 

to more closely align each endorsement 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1
56904 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 180 / Friday, September 17, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

with the greatest number of charter 

vessel anglers reported for each vessel 

that a charter business used to qualify 

for a charter halibut permit. This action 

is necessary to achieve the halibut 

fishery management goals of the North 

Pacific Fishery Management Council. 

DATES: Effective October 18, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Electronic copies of the 

Categorical Exclusion, the Regulatory 

Impact Review (RIR), the Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), 

and the Final Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis (FRFA) prepared for this action 

are available from http:// 

www.regulations.gov or from the NMFS 

Alaska Region website at http:// 

alaskafisheries.noaa.gov. The 

Environmental Assessment, RIR, and 

FRFA for the charter halibut limited 

access program are available from the 

NMFS Alaska Region website at http:// 

alaskafisheries.noaa.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Rachel Baker, 907–586–7228. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

International Pacific Halibut 

Commission (IPHC) and NMFS manage 

fishing for Pacific halibut (Hippoglossus 

stenolepis) through regulations 

established under authority of the 

Northern Pacific Halibut Act of 1982 

(Halibut Act). The IPHC promulgates 

regulations governing the Pacific halibut 

fishery under the Convention between 

the United States and Canada for the 

Preservation of the Halibut Fishery of 

the North Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea 

(Convention), signed at Ottawa, Ontario, 

on March 2, 1953, as amended by a 

Protocol Amending the Convention 

(signed at Washington, D.C., on March 

29, 1979). Regulations developed by the 

IPHC are subject to approval by the 

Secretary of State with concurrence 

from the Secretary of Commerce 

(Secretary). After approval by the 

Secretary of State and the Secretary, the 

IPHC regulations are published in the 

Federal Register as annual management 

measures pursuant to 50 CFR 300.62. 

The most recent IPHC regulations were 

published March 18, 2010 (75 FR 

13024). IPHC regulations affecting sport 

fishing for halibut and charter vessels in 

IPHC Areas 2C and 3A may be found in 

sections 3, 25, and 28 of the March 18 

final rule. 

The Halibut Act, at sections 773c(a) 

and (b), provides the Secretary with 

general responsibility to carry out the 

Convention and the Halibut Act. In 

adopting regulations that may be 

necessary to carry out the purposes and 

objectives of the Convention and the 

Halibut Act, the Secretary is directed to 

consult with the Secretary of the 

department in which the U.S. Coast 

Guard is operating. 

Section 773c(c) of the Halibut Act also 

authorizes the North Pacific Fishery 

Management Council (Council) to 

develop regulations, including limited 

access regulations, that are in addition 

to, and not in conflict with, approved 

IPHC regulations. Such Councildeveloped regulations may be 

implemented by NMFS only after 

approval by the Secretary. The Council 

has exercised this authority most 

notably in the development of its 

commercial fishery Individual Fishing 

Quota Program, codified at 50 CFR part 

679, subsistence halibut fishery 

management measures, codified at 50 

CFR 300.65, and the limited access 

program for charter vessels in the 

guided sport fishery, codified at 50 CFR 

300.67. This action is consistent with 

the Council’s authority under section 

773(c) of the Halibut Act. 

Charter Halibut Limited Access 

Program 

In March 2007, the Council 

recommended a limited access program 

for charter vessels in IPHC Areas 2C and 

3A. The intent of the program was to 

curtail growth of fishing capacity in the 

charter sector by limiting the number of 

charter vessels that may participate in 

the guided sport fishery for halibut in 

Areas 2C and 3A. NMFS published a 

final rule implementing the program on 

January 5, 2010 (75 FR 554). Under the 

program, NMFS will issue a charter 

halibut permit to a licensed charter 

fishing business owner based on his or 

her past participation in the charter 

halibut fishery. Portions of the limited 

access program final rule that related to 

eligibility criteria, the permit 

application process, and other 

administrative procedures became 

effective on February 4, 2010. The 

requirement to have a charter halibut 

permit on board a charter vessel fishing 

for halibut will become effective on 

February 1, 2011. 

Qualifications for Charter Halibut 

Permit 

An applicant must demonstrate 

participation in the charter halibut 

fishery during a historic qualifying 

period and during a recent participation 

period to receive an initial allocation of 

a charter halibut permit. The two 

historic qualifying periods are the sport 

fishing seasons established by the IPHC 

in 2004 and 2005 (February 1 through 

December 31). Applicants need to 

demonstrate participation only in one of 

these years–2004 or 2005. The recent 

participation period is the sport fishing 

season established by the IPHC in 2008 

(February 1 through December 31). This 

year was selected as the recent 

participation period because, at the time 

of program implementation, it was the 

most recent year for which NMFS had 

a complete record of saltwater charter 

vessel logbook data from the Alaska 

Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G). 

The basic unit of participation for 

receiving a charter halibut permit is a 

logbook fishing trip. A logbook fishing 

trip is an event that was reported to 

ADF&G in a saltwater charter vessel 

logbook within the requisite time limit 

in effect when the trip was made. 

The minimum participation 

qualifications include documentation of 

at least five logbook fishing trips during 

one of the qualifying years–2004 or 

2005–and at least five logbook fishing 

trips during 2008. Meeting the 

minimum participation qualifications 

could qualify an applicant for a nontransferable charter halibut permit. The 

minimum participation qualifications 

for a transferable charter halibut permit 

include documentation of at least 15 

logbook fishing trips during one of the 

qualifying years–2004 or 2005–and at 

least 15 logbook fishing trips during 

2008. 

Angler Endorsements 

Each charter halibut permit will have 

an angler endorsement number. The 

angler endorsement number on the 

permit is the maximum number of 

charter vessel anglers that may catch 

and retain halibut onboard the vessel 

during a charter vessel fishing trip. The 

term ‘‘charter vessel angler’’ is defined 

by regulation at 50 CFR 300.61 to 

include all persons, paying or nonpaying, who use the services of the 

charter vessel guide onboard the vessel. 

The angler endorsement assigned to a 

charter halibut permit limits the number 

of persons onboard that may catch and 

retain halibut. 

Under the final rule implementing the 

limited access program (75 FR 554, 

January 5, 2010), the angler 

endorsement assigned to a charter 

halibut permit for all qualified 

businesses would be equal to the 

greatest number of anglers reported for 

any vessel the business used for at least 

one logbook fishing trip in the 

qualifying period (2004 and 2005). The 

minimum angler endorsement would be 

four. All permits issued to an applicant 

would have the same angler 

endorsement. 

In February 2010, the Council 

reviewed the method described in the 

January 5, 2010, final rule for assigning 

angler endorsements to the second and 

subsequent charter halibut permits 

issued to business owners receiving 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 180 / Friday, September 17, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 56905 

more than one permit for an area. The 

Council noted that in some cases, the 

greatest number of charter vessel anglers 

reported for one vessel could be greater 

than the number of anglers reported on 

other vessels the business used to 

qualify for charter halibut permits. For 

example, if an applicant used three 

vessels to qualify for three permits, and 

reported a maximum of six charter 

vessel anglers for the first vessel’s trips, 

a maximum of four charter vessel 

anglers for the second vessel, and a 

maximum of three charter vessel anglers 

for the third vessel in the qualifying 

period, under the limited access 

program final rule the applicant would 

be issued three charter halibut permits, 

each with an angler endorsement of six. 

The Council was concerned about this 

method of assigning angler 

endorsements because the total number 

of angler endorsements the applicant 

would receive on all permits combined 

could be greater than the total number 

of charter vessel anglers the business 

reported for all of the vessels it used in 

the qualifying period. The Council also 

was concerned that the method of 

assigning angler endorsements under 

the January 5, 2010, final rule could 

result in an increase in fishing capacity 

the Council did not intend. The total 

number of angler endorsements that 

would be assigned to permits under the 

final rule potentially could enable a 

greater number of charter vessel anglers 

to catch and retain halibut under the 

limited access program than qualifying 

charter operators reported during the 

qualifying period. 

The Council initiated this action to 

more closely align angler endorsements 

assigned to the second and subsequent 

permits issued to a business owner with 

the permit recipient’s vessel-specific 

activity during the qualifying period. 

Using the previous example in which 

the applicant would receive three 

charter halibut permits, under this 

action, each permit’s angler 

endorsement would be derived from the 

number of charter vessel anglers 

reported for each vessel the applicant 

used in the qualifying period, with a 

minimum endorsement of four. The 

applicant would receive one permit 

with an angler endorsement of six, and 

two permits with an angler endorsement 

of four. The Council reviewed the RIR/ 

IRFA (see ADDRESSES) prepared for this 

action in April 2010, and selected a 

preferred alternative to revise the 

method of assigning angler 

endorsements to charter halibut permits 

issued to businesses receiving more 

than one permit for each area, Area 2C 

or Area 3A. 

Angler Endorsements Under This 

Action 

For applicants that qualify for more 

than one charter halibut permit, NMFS 

will determine the greatest number of 

charter vessel anglers the applicant 

reported for each vessel the applicant 

used in the qualifying period (2004 and 

2005) for an area. Each of these numbers 

will equal a vessel-specific angler 

endorsement number that will be 

assigned to a transferable or nontransferable charter halibut permit 

issued to the applicant for that area. 

NMFS will assign a vessel-specific 

angler endorsement of four if the 

applicant’s greatest number of reported 

anglers was fewer than four on that 

vessel in the qualifying period. A vesselspecific angler endorsement number 

will be used only once to assign an 

angler endorsement to a charter halibut 

permit for an area. 

For each applicant that is issued more 

than one charter halibut permit for an 

area, NMFS will assign the vesselspecific angler endorsement numbers 

for that area to a permit in descending 

order, from the largest to the smallest 

number, beginning with transferable 

permits, if any. The greatest vesselspecific angler endorsement number 

derived from any vessel the applicant 

used in that area in the qualifying 

period will be assigned to the first 

permit the applicant receives for that 

area. Once this vessel-specific angler 

endorsement number is assigned to a 

charter halibut permit, that vesselspecific number will not be assigned to 

any additional charter halibut permits 

issued to the applicant for that area. The 

next greatest vessel-specific angler 

endorsement number will be assigned to 

the second permit the applicant receives 

for that area, and this process of 

assigning endorsement numbers to 

permits will continue until all permits 

an applicant receives in that area are 

assigned an angler endorsement. If the 

applicant receives charter halibut 

permits for both Area 2C and Area 3A, 

this process will be used to assign the 

vessel-specific angler endorsement to a 

charter halibut permit for each area. 

Effects of This Action 

The following briefly describes the 

effects of revising the method used to 

assign angler endorsements to charter 

halibut permits. Additional discussion 

of the rationale for and effects of this 

action is provided in the preamble to 

the proposed rule published on July 6, 

2010 (75 FR 38758), and is not repeated 

here. 

This action affects the number of 

angler endorsements that are assigned to 

charter halibut permits initially issued 

to applicants that receive more than one 

permit in an area. It will not affect the 

number of transferable and nontransferable charter halibut permits that 

are initially issued by NMFS under the 

limited access program prior to the start 

of the 2011 fishing season. The RIR 

prepared for this action (see ADDRESSES) 

estimates that approximately 89 

qualified charter businesses would 

receive more than one charter halibut 

permit in Area 2C, which is 

approximately 39 percent of the 229 

charter businesses that apparently 

qualify for one or more permit in that 

area. In Area 3A, approximately 69 

apparently qualified charter businesses 

qualify for more than one charter 

halibut permit in Area 3A, which is 

approximately 24 percent of the 291 

charter businesses that apparently 

qualify for one or more permits in that 

area. This final rule will result in 

approximately 2,618 angler 

endorsements assigned to 501 permits 

in Area 2C. This will be a reduction of 

approximately 13 percent from the 

3,001 angler endorsements estimated to 

be assigned to charter halibut permits 

under the method used to assign angler 

endorsements under the former 

regulations. In Area 3A, this final rule 

will result in approximately 3,122 

angler endorsements assigned to 410 

permits. This will be a reduction of 

approximately 11 percent from the 

3,524 endorsements estimated to be 

assigned to permits under the former 

regulations. 

This action will reduce the angler 

endorsement numbers assigned to some 

charter halibut permits, while leaving 

other angler endorsement numbers 

unchanged from the status quo. A 

permit with fewer angler endorsements 

will authorize fewer charter vessel 

anglers to catch and retain halibut on a 

fishing trip. In general, this could 

reduce the revenue the charter halibut 

permit holder receives from using that 

permit. Transferable charter halibut 

permits with a reduced number of 

angler endorsements resulting from this 

action also likely will transfer for a 

lower value. Therefore, this action likely 

will adversely impact a charter halibut 

permit applicant receiving one or more 

charter halibut permits with a reduced 

number of angler endorsements relative 

to the status quo. However, as described 

in the RIR/FRFA (see ADDRESSES) 

prepared for this action, these impacts 

on affected operators are likely not 

significant. Charter vessel operators that 

receive a reduced number of angler 

endorsements under this action could 

mitigate the effect of this reduction by 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1
56906 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 180 / Friday, September 17, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

increasing the average number of 

anglers on a charter vessel fishing trip, 

or by increasing the average number of 

charter vessel fishing trips associated 

with an individual permit. Changes in 

the average number of anglers on an 

individual charter vessel fishing trip 

likely would not significantly change 

the operator’s costs and revenues for the 

trip, and on balance, are unlikely to 

have a significant economic impact on 

an individual charter vessel operator. 

Additionally, although applicants that 

are initially issued transferable charter 

halibut permits with a reduced number 

of angler endorsements resulting from 

this action likely would receive a lower 

price for the permit upon transfer, 

future holders of these charter halibut 

permits should not be affected. While 

these future permit holders may be able 

to generate less gross revenue from 

using the permit than they otherwise 

would have from a greater number of 

angler endorsements, they also should 

have to pay less for the permit. Overall, 

the reduced permit value likely will be 

balanced by the reduced purchase costs 

of affected permits. 

Although this action will have 

distributional impacts on individual 

charter business owners, revising the 

method of assigning angler 

endorsements to charter halibut permits 

likely will not impact current charter 

industry capacity and the sector’s ability 

to meet angler demand. The RIR (see 

ADDRESSES) determined that the number 

of angler endorsements that will be 

issued under this action likely will 

provide sufficient charter capacity to 

meet current angler demand, and even 

potentially some increase in demand. 

Similarly, this action is not expected to 

have a large impact on angler demand 

for charter vessel trips or the harvest of 

halibut by charter vessel anglers because 

of the action’s limited impact on 

capacity in the charter vessel sector. 

The Council intended for NMFS to 

revise angler endorsements before 

initially issuing charter halibut permits 

prior to the 2011 charter fishing season. 

This final rule will increase 

administrative costs for NMFS because 

it will require an appeals process (see 

Implementation of the This Action 

section below), in addition to the 

process established for charter halibut 

permits under the limited access 

program final rule (75 FR 554, January 

5, 2010). This appeals process will 

result in NMFS initially issuing charter 

halibut permits closer to the anticipated 

start of the 2011 charter season on 

February 1 than it intended under the 

status quo. This later permit issuance 

schedule could create some uncertainty 

for affected charter halibut permit 

applicants with respect to planning for 

the 2011 season, particularly for those 

applicants who already have indicated 

they accepted the angler endorsement 

numbers assigned to their permits under 

the previous regulations. 

Implementation of This Action 

To implement this action, NMFS will 

create an official record of charter 

business participation in Areas 2C and 

3A during the qualifying period and the 

recent participation period. The official 

record will be based on data from 

ADF&G, and will link each logbook 

fishing trip to an ADF&G Business 

Owner License and to the personindividual, corporation, partnership, or 

other entity-that obtained the license. 

Thus, the official record will include 

information from ADF&G on the 

person(s) who obtained ADF&G 

Business Owner Licenses in the 

qualifying period and the recent 

participation period; the logbook fishing 

trips in those years that met the State of 

Alaska’s legal requirements; the 

Business Owner License that authorized 

each logbook fishing trip; and the vessel 

that made each logbook fishing trip. 

This is the same method that NMFS 

used to create an official record of 

charter business participation under the 

January 5, 2010, final rule implementing 

the limited access program. The official 

record also will include the angler 

endorsement assigned to each charter 

halibut permit using the method 

implemented by this final rule. 

NMFS will notify all affected business 

owners of the revised angler 

endorsement(s) assigned to the charter 

halibut permit(s) they will be issued 

after the effective date of the rule. 

Affected business owners will have 30 

days to challenge NMFS’ determination. 

Charter business owners are allowed to 

submit documentation or further 

evidence in support of their claim 

during this 30–day evidentiary period. If 

NMFS accepts the business owner’s 

documentation as sufficient to change 

the agency determination, NMFS will 

change the official record and issue a 

charter halibut permit with a revised 

angler endorsement accordingly. If 

NMFS does not agree that the further 

evidence supports the participant’s 

claim, NMFS will issue an initial 

administrative determination (IAD) 

denying the participant’s claim, and 

issue the participant’s charter halibut 

permit(s) consistent with the official 

record. The IAD will describe why 

NMFS is initially denying some or all of 

an applicant’s claim and will provide 

instructions on how to appeal the IAD. 

In such cases, the applicant may not 

transfer any of the issued permits, even 

if a permit is otherwise transferable, 

until NMFS takes Final Agency Action 

on the applicant’s claims. Unless the 

applicant appeals the IAD, the IAD 

becomes Final Agency Action 30 days 

after the IAD is issued. 

Charter business owners will be able 

to appeal an IAD through the NOAA 

Office of Administrative Appeals 

(OAA). The OAA is a separate unit 

within the office of the Regional 

Administrator for the Alaska Region of 

NMFS. The OAA is charged with 

developing a record and preparing a 

formal decision on all appeals. The 

OAA decision is subject to review by 

the Regional Administrator. If the 

Regional Administrator does not 

intervene, the OAA decision becomes 

the Final Agency Action 30 days after 

the decision is issued. If the Regional 

Administrator affirms, reverses, or 

modifies the OAA decision within 30 

days from the date the decision is 

issued, the Regional Administrator’s 

decision is the Final Agency Action. An 

applicant who is aggrieved by the Final 

Agency Action may then appeal to the 

U.S. District Court. Regulations at 50 

CFR 679.43 provide a regulatory 

description of the existing appeals 

process. NMFS will issue interim 

permits to applicants who filed timely 

applications and whose appeal is 

accepted by NOAA. These interim 

permits would be effective until Final 

Agency Action. 

Proposed Rule 

NMFS published a proposed rule to 

revise the method of assigning angler 

endorsements to charter halibut permits 

on July 6, 2010 (75 FR 38758). The 

comment period on the proposed rule 

ended on August 5, 2010. NMFS 

received five comments from two 

individuals and two organizations 

regarding the proposed rule. One 

comment was not directly related to the 

action. Two comments discussed 

specific technical aspects of the 

regulation, one comment addressed the 

impact of the regulation on affected 

entities, and one comment contained 

suggestions to NMFS for improving the 

process of developing fisheries 

management regulations. These 

comments did not raise new issues or 

concerns that have not been addressed 

in the RIR/FRFA prepared to support 

this action, the preamble to the 

proposed rule, or the EA/RIR/FRFA 

prepared to support the charter halibut 

limited access program (see ADDRESSES). 

Response to Public Comments 

Comment 1: The commenter raises 

general concerns about NMFS’ 

management of fisheries, asserting that 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 180 / Friday, September 17, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 56907 

fishery policies have not benefited 

American citizens. The commenter also 

asserts that NMFS is biased and should 

not be allowed to manage fisheries. 

Response: This comment is not 

specifically related to the proposed rule. 

The comment recommends broad 

changes to fisheries management and 

provides opinions of the Federal 

Government’s general management of 

marine resources that are outside of the 

scope of this action. The comment did 

not raise new relevant issues or 

concerns that have not been addressed 

in the RIR/FRFA prepared to support 

this action or the preamble to the 

proposed rule. 

Comment 2: We understand that 

under the final rule implementing the 

limited access program that some angler 

endorsements included skipper and 

crew participation recorded in the 

logbooks. The skipper and crew were 

providing services to charter vessel 

anglers and should not be counted 

toward the history of the vessel for 

determining angler endorsements. 

Response: NMFS used the ‘‘total 

clients’’ field in the logbook data 

received from ADF&G to determine the 

angler endorsement on a charter halibut 

permit under the former regulations. 

NMFS will continue to use the ‘‘total 

clients’’ field to determine the number of 

angler endorsements assigned to a 

charter halibut permit under this final 

rule. The 2004 and 2005 logbooks 

contained a ‘‘total crew’’ field for charter 

operators to record the number of crew 

fishing, and the logbook instructions 

directed operators not to combine client 

and crew information. NMFS did not 

use the ‘‘total crew’’ field for 

determining angler endorsements. 

Comment 3: Two commenters 

supported the intent of the proposed 

rule to change the method of assigning 

angler endorsements under the former 

regulations. However, the commenters 

suggested that NMFS should change the 

method of assigning angler 

endorsements prior to initially issuing 

charter halibut permits to ensure that an 

angler endorsement number does not 

exceed the number of passengers that 

were allowed by U.S. Coast Guard 

(USCG) regulations on the vessel used to 

qualify for the charter halibut permit 

during the qualifying period (2004 and 

2005). 

One of the commenters also suggested 

that NMFS should not assign an 

applicant’s greatest vessel-specific 

angler endorsement number to charter 

halibut permits beginning with 

transferable permits as described in the 

proposed rule. This commenter also 

indicated that these suggested changes 

should be reflected in the final rule for 

this action and implemented before 

permits are initially issued. 

Response: No changes are made to the 

proposed rule. The March 2007 Council 

motion for the charter halibut permit 

program directed NMFS to use ADF&G 

logbook data to determine the angler 

endorsement number assigned to a 

charter halibut permit. The Council 

recommended that the angler 

endorsement number be equal to the 

number of charter vessel anglers the 

applicant reported on a logbook fishing 

trip in 2004 or 2005, subject to a 

minimum endorsement of four. The EA/ 

RIR/FRFA prepared for the charter 

halibut permit program (see ADDRESSES) 

discusses this issue in section 2.5.12.4. 

This analysis, along with the final rule 

implementing the charter halibut 

limited access program (75 FR 554, 

January 5, 2010), and the RIR/FRFA 

prepared for this action (see 

ADDRESSES), also noted that the angler 

endorsement on a charter halibut permit 

would not supersede USCG licensing or 

other safety rules or regulations. 

The proposed rule for this action is 

consistent with the Council’s 

recommendation to use ADF&G logbook 

data as evidence of applicant 

participation for purposes of 

implementing the limited access 

program, including assigning angler 

endorsements to charter halibut permits. 

In the final rule implementing the 

limited access program (75 FR 554, 

January 5, 2010), NMFS also 

implemented the Council’s 

recommendation that charter halibut 

permit applicants sign an affidavit 

attesting that all legal requirements were 

met. During the charter halibut permit 

application period (February 4, 2010, 

through April 5, 2010), NMFS required 

applicants to attest by signature on the 

permit application that ‘‘[t]he applicant 

complied with all legal requirements 

that pertained to the bottomfish logbook 

fishing trips in 2004 and 2005 and the 

halibut logbook fishing trips in 2008 

that were reported under the applicant’s 

ADF&G Business License.’’ 

Finally, at the April 2010 Council 

meeting, NMFS described its proposed 

method for assigning angler 

endorsements under this action to the 

Council. Specifically, NMFS proposed 

to assign an applicant’s greatest vesselspecific angler endorsement number to 

charter halibut permits in descending 

order, from the largest to the smallest 

number, beginning with the first 

transferable permit the applicant would 

receive. NMFS proposed to assign the 

next greatest vessel-specific angler 

endorsement to the second transferable 

permit the applicant would receive, and 

continue this process until all 

transferable and non-transferable 

permits for an applicant were assigned 

an angler endorsement. The method also 

was described in section 1.6.3 of the 

RIR/IRFA (see ADDRESSES) prepared for 

this action. 

Comment 4: The proposed rule states 

this action would adversely impact 

applicants who receive a reduced 

number of angler endorsements. 

Although this reduced number of angler 

endorsements is a reduction when 

compared to the status quo, i.e., the 

number of angler endorsements an 

applicant would receive under the 

current regulations, it is not an actual 

reduction when compared to historical 

practices. 

Response: NMFS agrees that the 

impact of a reduced number of angler 

endorsements on charter halibut permits 

issued to affected applicants under this 

action, as discussed in the proposed 

rule (75 FR 38758, July 6, 2010) and the 

RIR/FRFA (see ADDRESSES), is relative to 

the status quo. NMFS notes that under 

both the status quo and this final rule, 

an angler endorsement number is 

determined by the applicant’s past 

participation in the charter halibut 

fishery as reported in ADF&G logbooks, 

as recommended by the Council. 

The proposed rule and the RIR/IRFA 

noted that this action likely would not 

have a significant adverse economic 

impact on applicants receiving a 

reduced number of angler 

endorsements, relative to the status quo. 

First, charter vessel operators receiving 

a reduced number of angler 

endorsements under this action may 

receive less revenue per charter vessel 

fishing trip relative to the status quo, 

because fewer anglers would be 

authorized to catch and retain halibut 

on each trip. Second, transferable 

permits with a reduced number of 

angler endorsements likely will transfer 

for a lower value relative to the status 

quo. The proposed rule and the RIR/ 

IRFA also discussed that these impacts 

likely would not be significant because 

affected charter vessel operators could 

mitigate the reduction in angler 

endorsements by increasing the average 

number of anglers on a charter vessel 

fishing trip, or by increasing the average 

number of charter vessel fishing trips 

associated with an individual permit, 

without significantly affecting operating 

costs or revenues. Additionally, 

although applicants that are initially 

issued transferable charter halibut 

permits with a reduced number of 

angler endorsements resulting from this 

action likely would receive a lower 

price for the permit upon transfer, 

future holders of these charter halibut 

permits should not be affected. While 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1
56908 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 180 / Friday, September 17, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

these future permit holders may 

generate less gross revenue from using 

the permit than they otherwise would 

have from a greater number of angler 

endorsements, they also should have to 

pay less for the permit. Overall, the 

reduced permit value likely will be 

balanced by the reduced purchase costs 

of affected permits. 

Comment 5: One commenter 

suggested that NMFS implement an 

effective peer review process for 

developing proposed and final rules and 

implementing fishery management 

programs such as the charter halibut 

permit program. This review process 

should include a comparison of the rule 

to the requirements specified in the 

Council motion. This process also 

should include review of regulations by 

subject matter experts such as Council 

staff, ADF&G staff, and Council advisory 

committees. 

Response: NMFS agrees that a robust 

review process is an important 

component of developing effective 

fisheries management regulations. 

NMFS, Alaska Region worked with the 

Council during the development of this 

action and considers the Council’s 

recommendations during all stages of a 

rule’s development. NMFS, Alaska 

Region also considers input by other 

relevant agency staff, affected 

stakeholders, and the public when 

promulgating a final rule. NMFS 

appreciates the commenter’s suggestion 

for peer review of proposed and final 

rules and will consider how it might be 

incorporated in the existing process. 

Changes From the Proposed Rule 

NMFS did not make any changes from 

the proposed rule, published on July 6, 

2010 (75 FR 38758), to the final rule. 

Classification 

Regulations governing the U.S. 

fisheries for Pacific halibut are 

developed by the IPHC, the Pacific 

Fishery Management Council, the 

Council, and the Secretary. Section 

773c(c) of the Northern Pacific Halibut 

Act of 1982 (16 U.S.C. 773c) allows the 

Regional Council having authority for a 

particular geographical area to develop 

regulations governing the allocation and 

catch of halibut in U.S. Convention 

waters, as long as those regulations do 

not conflict with IPHC regulations. This 

action is consistent with the Council’s 

authority to allocate halibut catches 

among fishery participants in the waters 

in and off Alaska. 

Executive Order 12866 

This final rule has been determined to 

be not significant for purposes of 

Executive Order 12866. 

Executive Order 12962 

This final rule is consistent with 

Executive Order 12962 as amended 

September 26, 2008, which requires 

federal agencies to ensure that 

recreational fishing is managed as a 

sustainable activity, and is consistent 

with existing law. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

A FRFA was prepared as required by 

section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act. The FRFA describes the economic 

impact this final rule will have on small 

entities. The RIR/FRFA prepared for this 

final rule is available from NMFS (see 

ADDRESSES). The FRFA for this action 

explains the need for, and objectives of, 

the rule; summarizes the public 

comments on the initial regulatory 

flexibility analysis and agency 

responses; describes and estimates the 

number of small entities to which the 

rule will apply; describes projected 

reporting, recordkeeping, and other 

compliance requirements of the rule; 

and describes the steps the agency has 

taken to minimize the significant 

economic impact on small entities, 

including a statement of the factual, 

policy, and legal reasons for selecting 

the alternative adopted in the final rule 

and why each one of the other 

significant alternatives to the rule 

considered by the agency that affect the 

impact on small entities was rejected. 

The need for and objectives of this 

action; a summary of the comments and 

responses; a description of the action, 

its purpose, and its legal basis; and a 

statement of the factual, policy, and 

legal reasons for selecting the alternative 

implemented by this action are 

described elsewhere in this preamble 

and are not repeated here. 

The proposed rule was published in 

the Federal Register on July 6, 2010 (75 

FR 38758). An IRFA was prepared and 

described in the classification section of 

the preamble to the rule. The public 

comment period ended on August 5, 

2010. NMFS received five comments 

from two individuals and two 

organizations. Although none of the 

comments directly addressed the IRFA, 

Comment 4 discussed the economic 

impact of this regulation on affected 

entities. 

The entities directly regulated by this 

action are guided charter businesses that 

qualify to receive more than one charter 

halibut permit in IPHC Areas 2C and 

3A. NMFS estimates that under the 

status quo, 89 firms qualify to receive 

more than one charter halibut permit in 

Area 2C, and 69 firms qualify to receive 

more than one charter halibut permit in 

Area 3A. While quantitative information 

on individual charter business revenues 

is lacking, almost all of these firms are 

believed to be small entities under the 

terms of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. 

The only exceptions may be some lodgebased operations in Southeast Alaska. 

The Small Business Administration 

(SBA) specifies that for marinas and 

charter/party boats, a small business is 

one with annual receipts less than $6.0 

million. The largest of these charter 

operations, which are lodges, may be 

considered large entities under SBA 

standards, but that cannot be confirmed 

because NMFS does not collect 

economic data on lodges. All other 

charter operations likely are small 

entities based on SBA criteria, because 

they would be expected to have gross 

revenues of less than $6.0 million on an 

annual basis. 

The RIR/FRFA (see ADDRESSES) 

prepared for this action did not identify 

any new projected reporting, 

recordkeeping, and other compliance 

requirements on directly regulated 

entities. Under this final rule, NMFS 

will notify affected applicants of the 

change to the angler endorsement 

assigned to a charter halibut permit that 

will be issued to an applicant. 

NMFS has not identified other 

Federal rules that may duplicate, 

overlap, or conflict with this final rule. 

The objective of this action is to more 

closely align angler endorsements 

assigned to the second and subsequent 

charter halibut permits issued to a 

business with the actual greatest 

number of anglers reported for each 

vessel that a business used to qualify for 

charter halibut permits. The Council’s 

preferred alternative for this action, as 

implemented by this final rule, will 

reduce the total number of angler 

endorsements assigned to charter 

halibut permits from the number of 

endorsements that would be assigned 

under the status quo alternative. 

As noted above, all or most of the 

entities that are directly impacted by 

this regulation are small entities. This 

action likely will not have a significant 

adverse impact on some of these entities 

relative to the status quo alternative. 

Generally, a reduction in the number of 

angler endorsements assigned to a 

charter halibut permit reduces the 

potential for profit from that permit, 

because a permit with fewer 

endorsements will authorize fewer 

charter vessel anglers on any given 

fishing trip. However, the RIR/FRFA 

(see ADDRESSES) prepared for this action 

notes that individual charter halibut 

permits could be used more or less 

intensively by charter vessel operators 

to meet angler demand. Charter vessel 

operators that receive a reduced number 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 180 / Friday, September 17, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 56909 

of angler endorsements under this 

action could lessen the effect of this 

reduction by increasing the average 

number of anglers on a charter vessel 

fishing trip, or by increasing the average 

number of charter vessel fishing trips 

associated with an individual permit. 

Changes in the average number of 

anglers on an individual charter vessel 

fishing trip likely would produce 

relatively modest changes in the 

operator’s costs and revenues for the 

trip. On balance, these changes are not 

likely to have a significant economic 

impact on an individual charter vessel 

operator. 

The Council and NMFS considered 

two alternatives for this action. 

Alternative 1 was the status quo 

alternative, which was rejected because 

it did not achieve the Council’s 

objectives for determining the number 

of angler endorsements assigned to 

charter halibut permits. Alternative 2 

was the Council and NMFS’ preferred 

alternative. The Council and NMFS 

considered three options for Alternative 

2. Option 1 would have determined a 

vessel-specific angler endorsement for 

businesses receiving more than one 

charter halibut permit for all vessels 

used in one year of the qualifying 

period, rather than considering all 

vessel activity in both 2004 and 2005. 

Option 2 would have used the same 

one-year restriction for determining 

angler endorsements, but applied the 

action to all businesses that would 

qualify to receive charter halibut 

permits, rather than limiting the action 

only to charter businesses that would 

qualify to receive more than one charter 

halibut permit. The Council and NMFS 

rejected Options 1 and 2 because they 

would result in changes to the status 

quo method of assigning angler 

endorsements to the first charter halibut 

permit issued to affected businesses, in 

addition to changing the status quo 

method of assigning angler 

endorsements to the second and 

subsequent charter halibut permit 

issued to affected businesses. In 

recommending the preferred alternative 

(Alternative 2, Option 3), which is the 

alternative implemented by the rule, the 

Council clarified that it intended to 

revise the status quo method of 

assigning an angler endorsement only to 

the second and subsequent charter 

halibut permits received by a business 

receiving more than one permit. The 

Council did not intend to revise the 

status quo method of assigning an angler 

endorsement to the first charter halibut 

permit received by any qualifying 

business. Therefore, the preferred 

alternative, Alternative 2, Option 3, as 

implemented by this final rule, 

accomplishes the distributional 

objectives of the Council with the least 

adverse impact on directly regulated 

entities. 

Data on cost structure, affiliation, and 

operational procedures and strategies in 

the halibut charter vessel sector are 

unavailable, and NMFS is unable to 

quantify the economic impacts of this 

action on affected small entities for any 

of the options analyzed. The qualitative 

analysis in the RIR/FRFA (see 

ADDRESSES) estimates that none of the 

options considered under this action are 

expected to have a significant impact on 

small entities. While there may be some 

costs imposed on small entities through 

impacts on permit flexibility and 

implementation expenses, these impacts 

are likely to be small, because of the 

limited impact of this action on the 

operational efficiency of an individual 

charter operator. 

Collection of Information 

This rule contains a collection-ofinformation requirement subject to the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), which 

has been approved by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) under 

Control Number 0648–0592. Public 

reporting burden estimate per response 

for the charter halibut permit 

application is two hours. This estimate 

includes 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 this burden 

estimate, or any other aspect of this data 

collection, including suggestions for 

reducing the burden, to NMFS (see 

ADDRESSES) and by e-mail to 

OIRAlSubmission@omb.eop.gov, or fax 

to 202–395–7285. 

Notwithstanding any other provision 

of the law, no person is required to 

respond to, nor shall any person be 

subject to a penalty for failure to comply 

with, a collection of information subject 

to the requirements of the PRA, unless 

that collection of information displays a 

currently valid OMB control number. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 300 

Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Treaties. 

Dated: September 13, 2010. 

John Oliver, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator for 

Operations, National Marine Fisheries 

Service. 

■ For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, NMFS amends 50 CFR part 

300, subpart E as follows: 

PART 300–INTERNATIONAL 

FISHERIES REGULATIONS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 300, 

subpart E continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 773–773k. 

■ 2. In § 300.67: 

■ a. Redesignate paragraphs (e)(1) and 

(e)(2) as paragraphs (e)(5) and (e)(6), 

respectively; 

■ b. Revise paragraph (e) introductory 

text; 

■ c. Add paragraphs (e)(1) through 

(e)(4); and 

■ d. Revise newly redesignated 

paragraph (e)(5) to read as follows: 

§ 300.67 Charter halibut limited access 

program. 

* * * * * 

(e) Angler endorsement. A charter 

halibut permit will be endorsed as 

follows: 

(1) The angler endorsement number 

for the first transferable permit for an 

area issued to an applicant will be the 

greatest number of charter vessel anglers 

reported on any logbook trip in the 

qualifying period in that area. 

(2) The angler endorsement number 

for each subsequent transferable permit 

issued to the same applicant for the 

same area will be the greatest number of 

charter vessel anglers reported by the 

applicant on any logbook trip in the 

qualifying period for a vessel not 

already used in that area to determine 

an angler endorsement, until all 

transferable permits issued to the 

applicant are assigned an angler 

endorsement. 

(3) The angler endorsement number 

for the first non-transferable permit for 

an area issued to an applicant will be 

the greatest number of charter vessel 

anglers reported on any logbook trip in 

the qualifying period for a vessel not 

already used to determine an angler 

endorsement in that area. 

(4) The angler endorsement number 

for each subsequent non-transferable 

permit issued to the same applicant for 

the same area will be the greatest 

number of charter vessel anglers 

reported by the applicant on any 

logbook trip in the qualifying period for 

a vessel not already used in that area to 

determine an angler endorsement, until 

all non-transferable permits issued to 

the applicant are assigned an angler 

endorsement. 

(5) The angler endorsement number 

will be four (4) if the greatest number of 

charter vessel anglers reported on any 

logbook fishing trip for an area in the 

qualifying period is less than four (4), or 

no charter vessel anglers were reported 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1
56910 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 180 / Friday, September 17, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

on any of the applicant’s logbook fishing 

trips in the applicant-selected year. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2010–23267 Filed 9–16–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 


wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with RULES_PART 1