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
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 195 / Friday, October 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 62327 

fishing capacity reduction loans have 

been codified at 46 U.S.C. § 53735. 

This action amends subpart L to 50 

CFR part 600 to implement the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management 

Reauthorization Act (Pub. L. 109–479) 

amendments for requesting and 

conducting fishing capacity reduction 

programs. 

II. Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization 

Act Changes 

The Magnuson-Stevens 

Reauthorization Act requires several 

modifications to the framework 

regulations. 

First, the Magnuson-Stevens 

Reauthorization Act contained a 

provision that states that, in addition to 

the appropriate fishery management 

Council or Governor of a State, a 

majority of permit holders in the fishery 

may request a buyback program. Such a 

program may be conducted if the 

Secretary determines that the program is 

necessary to prevent or end overfishing, 

rebuild stocks of fish, or achieve 

measurable and significant 

improvements in the conservation and 

management of the fishery. As a result 

of this change, NMFS is amending the 

definition of ‘‘Requester’’ and the 

regulations outlining the process for 

submission requests to allow permit 

holders, if they constitute a majority, to 

request a buyback program. 

Second, the Magnuson-Stevens 

Reauthorization Act clarified that a 

permit holder relinquishes any future 

limited access system claims associated 

with the permit or vessel participating 

in a reduction program and that (if not 

scrapped) the vessel will be effectively 

prevented from fishing in Federal or 

state waters, or fishing on the high seas 

or in the waters of a foreign nation. The 

Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization Act 

revised section 312(b)(2)(A) to recognize 

that the owner of a fishing vessel may 

be different from the permit holder. As 

a result of this change, NMFS is 

amending the regulations to require 

that, along with surrendering the permit 

authorizing the participation of the 

vessel in the fishery, for permanent 

revocation, both the vessel owner and 

the permit holder, if different from the 

vessel owner, relinquish any claim 

associated with the vessel or permit that 

could qualify such owner or permit 

holder for any present or future limited 

access system permit in the fishery for 

which the program is established or in 

any other fishery. 

Third, the Magnuson-Stevens 

Reauthorization Act added Section 

312(b)(5) regarding payment conditions 

stating that if a vessel is not scrapped, 

the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) 

must certify that the vessel will not be 

used for fishing in the waters of a 

foreign nation or fishing on the high 

seas. As a result of this change, NMFS 

is amending the regulations so that the 

Secretary must make such certification 

before making payment. Because each 

program is different, and would need to 

include fishery-specific information and 

requirements, NMFS is not proposing at 

this time specific details that must be 

included in the certification plans, but 

will provide the requirements for the 

certification process on a case-by-case 

basis for each reduction fishery program 

when the regulations for that program is 

published in the Federal Register. 

Fourth, the Magnuson-Stevens 

Reauthorization Act also changed the 

approval threshold for the capacity 

reduction referendum. The reauthorized 

Act now states that a fee system shall be 

considered approved if the referendum 

votes which are cast in favor of the 

proposed system constitute ‘‘at least a 

majority of the permit holders in the 

fishery, or 50 percent of the permitted 

allocation of the fishery, who participate 

in the fishery’’. Previously, a referendum 

was approved with a two-thirds 

majority of the participating voters. As 

a result of this amendment, NOAA 

amends the referendum procedure 

accordingly. 

On June 14, 2010, NMFS published 

proposed regulations in the Federal 

Register (75 FR 33570) to implement the 

program’s industry fee system. This 

final rule implements the changes as 

originally proposed and will be effective 

on November 8, 2010. 

III. Summary of Comments and 

Responses 

NMFS received four comments in 

response to the proposed rule. Three 

were from individuals and one from the 

U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI). 

DOI reviewed the proposed rule and 

acknowledged that because it addresses 

the framework process it would not 

have any immediate effect on National 

Park Service fishery resources. 

Comment 1: The commenter 

expressed concern about the potential 

Southeast Alaska Purse Seine Salmon 

Buyback Program, specifically that 

future comment periods be open when 

stakeholders are available to participate. 

Response: This action affects the 

framework buyback rule. Each specific 

buyback program undergoes a separate 

rulemaking process. NMFS strives to get 

the most public input possible. Thus, 

for an individual fishery program with 

a finite season, NMFS would attempt to 

avoid holding open public comment 

periods solely while the fleet is fishing. 

Comment 2: The commenter 

expressed concern about charter boat 

participation in a buyback program. 

Response: This rule implements 

changes to the existing buyback 

framework rule. The framework rule 

establishes parameters for developing a 

buyback program for commercial 

fisheries. It does not apply to the charter 

fishing industry. 

Comment 3: The commenter 

expressed concern about future rule 

making and claimed that many of the 

vessels in question were built using tax 

payer money and implied that the 

government paying to scrap them was 

inefficient. The commenter also 

expressed concern about the 

implications of this action on small 

fishing entities and harbor based 

communities. 

Response: NMFS notes that this rule 

implements changes to the existing 

buyback framework rule. The 

framework provides a process to 

implement fishing capacity reduction 

programs which remove fishing permits 

and may or may not remove fishing 

vessels. This action does not directly 

remove any fishing permits or vessels. 

Specific rulemaking for each fishery 

would be necessary before a program 

could be implemented. NMFS would 

consider any impacts on such fishing at 

that time. 

Comment 4: The commenter 

expressed concern about the 

environmental impacts of fishing 

trawlers and other gear upon the ocean 

bottom and suggested that fishing 

capacity reduction programs be 

restricted to certain gear types. 

Response: This action only addresses 

the buyback framework rule process. 

This comment may be appropriate and 

relevant to the development of a specific 

fishing capacity reduction program in 

an individual fishery and would be 

considered when such programs are 

developed. 

Comment 5: The commenter 

expressed concern that fishing capacity 

reduction programs could increase the 

proliferation of fish farms which would 

cause negative environmental impacts. 

Response: This action affects the 

framework buyback rule and will not 

directly impact any fishery. Each 

specific buyback program undergoes a 

separate rulemaking process and 

consideration of environmental impacts 

at that time, which may include the 

impacts of aquaculture. 

Comment 6: The commenter 

expressed concerns that the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act considerations were 

insufficient and that small entities 

would be adversely affected. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
62328 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 195 / Friday, October 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

Response: NMFS disagrees. The 

framework modifications implemented 

by this rule impact only the process 

under which fishery capacity reduction 

programs are created and implemented, 

and would not directly implement 

changes to specific fisheries. Each 

program will be individually evaluated 

and analyzed at the appropriate time 

including its impact on small 

businesses. The Chief Counsel for 

Regulation of the Department of 

Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel 

for Advocacy of the Small Business 

Administration that this will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

IV. Summary of Revisions 

NMFS revises the following sections 

of the regulations of subpart L to 50 CFR 

part 600: 

(1) Section 600.1000. This section is 

revised to amend the definition of 

‘‘Requester’’ to include the majority of 

permit holders in a fishery. 

(2) Section 600.1001(a). This section 

is amended to provide for authority that 

a majority of permit holders in the 

fishery may initiate a voluntary fishing 

capacity reduction program. 

(3) Section 600.1002(c). This new 

provision states the Secretary may not 

make a fishing capacity reduction 

program payment with respect to a 

reduction vessel that will not be 

scrapped unless the Secretary certifies 

that the vessel will not be used for 

fishing in the waters of the U.S., a 

foreign nation, or on the high seas. 

(4) Section 600.1009(a)(5)(ii). This 

section is revised to clarify title 

restrictions on any reduction vessel that 

is not scrapped. 

(5) Section 600.1010(a). This section 

is revised to reflect the new industry fee 

system approval threshold to at least a 

majority of the permit holders in the 

fishery who participated in the fishery. 

V. Classification 

The Administrator for Fisheries, 

NMFS, determined that this rule is 

consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act, the Magnuson-Stevens 

Reauthorization Act (Pub. L. 109–479), 

and other applicable laws. 

The revisions to the framework 

regulations do not propose any major 

new programs. The framework 

modifications implemented by this rule 

impact only the process under which 

fishery capacity reduction programs are 

created and implemented, and would 

not directly implement changes to 

specific fisheries. Therefore, the 

rulemaking does not lend itself to 

quantitative or qualitative analysis. For 

example, the analysis of impacts on 

vessels, vessel revenues, port revenues, 

fish stock impacts, etc. are not possible 

in the absence of identifying specific 

fisheries and buyback program fishery 

components. Each individual program 

will be implemented through the 

rulemaking process in accordance with 

5 U.S.C. 553, and thus, each program 

will be individually evaluated and 

appropriately analyzed under NEPA at 

the appropriate time. This action is 

categorically excluded from the 

requirement to prepare an 

environmental assessment in 

accordance with NOAA Administrative 

Order (NAO) 216–6. 

The Office of Management and Budget 

determined that this proposal is not 

significant pursuant to Executive Order 

12866. NMFS prepared a Regulatory 

Impact Review which is available upon 

request (see ADDRESSES). 

Section 605 of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (RFA) provides that if an 

agency determines that a rule will not 

have a significant impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, it 

may certify that finding to the Small 

Business Administration in lieu of 

preparing an analysis. Although one 

commenter expressed concern that the 

RFA considerations were insufficient 

and small entities would be adversely 

affected, NMFS disagrees. The 

framework modifications implemented 

by this rule impact only the process 

under which fishery capacity reduction 

programs are created and implemented, 

and would not directly implement 

changes to specific fisheries. Each 

program will be individually evaluated 

and analyzed at the appropriate time 

including its impact on small 

businesses. The Chief Counsel for 

Regulation of the Department of 

Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel 

for Advocacy of the Small Business 

Administration that this will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

This final rule does not contain any 

new collection of information 

requirements subject to the PRA. The 

estimates of the public reporting burden 

that have been previously approved by 

OMB, under OMB Control No. 0648– 

0376 remain valid. Send comments 

regarding the collection of information 

requirements contained in this final 

rule, including the burden hour 

estimates, and suggestions for reducing 

the burdens to NMFS (see ADDRESSES) 

and to OMB (see ADDRESSES). 

Notwithstanding any other provision 

of 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 Paperwork 

Reduction Act (PRA) unless that 

collection of information displays a 

currently valid OMB control number. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 600 

Fisheries, Fishing capacity reduction, 

Fishing permits, Fishing vessels, 

Intergovernmental relations, Loan 

programs—business, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: October 5, 2010. 

Samuel D. Rauch III, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator For 

Regulatory Programs, National Marine 

Fisheries Service. 

■ For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, NMFS amends 50 CFR part 

600 as follows: 

PART 600—MAGNUSON-STEVENS 

ACT PROVISIONS 

■ 1. The authority citation for 50 CFR 

part 600 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 561 and 16 U.S.C. 1801 

et seq. 

■ 2. In § 600.1000, the definition of 

‘‘Requester’’ is revised to read as follows: 

§ 600.1000 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Requester means a Council for a 

fishery identified in § 600.1001(c) or a 

state governor for a fishery identified in 

§ 600.1001(d), or a majority of permit 

holders in the fishery. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. In § 600.1001, paragraph (a) is 

revised to read as follows: 

§ 600.1001 Requests. 

(a) A Council, the Governor of a State 

under whose authority a proposed 

reduction fishery is subject, or a 

majority of permit holders in the fishery 

may request that NMFS conduct a 

program in that fishery. Each request 

shall be in writing. Each request shall 

satisfy the requirements of § 600.1003 or 

§ 600.1005, as applicable, and enable 

NMFS to make the determinations 

required by § 600.1004 or § 600.1006, as 

applicable. 

* * * * * 

■ 4. In § 600.1002, paragraph (c) is 

added to read as follows: 

§ 600.1002 General requirements. 

* * * * * 

(c) The Secretary may not make a 

fishing capacity reduction program 

payment with respect to a reduction 

vessel that will not be scrapped unless 

the Secretary certifies that the vessel 

will not be used for fishing in the waters 

of the U.S., a foreign nation, or on the 

high seas. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 195 / Friday, October 8, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 62329 

■ 5. In § 600.1009, paragraph (a)(5)(ii) is 

revised to read as follows: 

§ 600.1009 Bids. 

(a) * * * 

(5) * * * 

(ii) Where the program also involves 

the withdrawal of reduction vessels 

from fishing: 

(A) Title restrictions imposed by the 

U.S. Coast Guard on any reduction 

vessel that is Federally documented to 

forever prohibit and effectively prevent 

any future use of the reduction vessel 

for fishing: 

(1) In any area subject to the 

jurisdiction of the United States, or any 

state, territory, commonwealth, or 

possession of the United States, or 

(2) On the high seas, or 

(3) In the waters of a foreign nation; 

or 

(B) Scrapping of all reduction vessels 

involved in a fishing capacity reduction 

program, unless the reduction program 

vessel has been certified by the 

Secretary, and the requirements 

established under § 600.1002(c) are met. 

Where reduction vessel scrapping is 

involved and the reduction vessel’s 

owner does not comply with the 

owner’s obligation under the reduction 

contract to scrap the reduction vessel, 

the Secretary may take such measures as 

necessary to cause the reduction vessel’s 

prompt scrapping. The scrapping will 

be at the reduction vessel owner’s risk 

and expense. Upon completion of 

scrapping, NMFS will take such action 

as may be necessary to recover from the 

reduction vessel owner any cost, 

damages, or other expense NMFS 

incurred in the scrapping of the 

reduction vessel. 

* * * * * 

■ 6. In § 600.1010 paragraph (a) is 

revised to read as follows: 

§ 600.1010 Referenda. 

(a) Referendum success. A 

referendum is successful if at least a 

majority of the permit holders in the 

fishery who participate in the fishery 

cast ballots in favor of an industry fee 

system. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2010–25437 Filed 10–7–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES