41092 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 156 / Friday, August 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

security agreement. An application for 

transfer that would cause a person to 

exceed the transfer limit of this 

provision will not be approved. A 

transfer of an Aleutian Island area 

endorsement as described under 

paragraph (k)(7)(viii)(A) of this section 

to another LLP license, or the transfer of 

a groundfish license with an Aleutian 

Island area endorsement as described 

under paragraph (k)(7)(viii)(A) of this 

section attached to it will be considered 

to be a transfer of that Aleutian Island 

area endorsement. 

* * * * * 

(viii) * * * 

(A) Area endorsements or area/species 

endorsements specified on a license are 

not severable from the license and must 

be transferred together, except that 

Aleutian Island area endorsements on a 

groundfish license with a trawl gear 

designation issued under the provisions 

of paragraph (k)(4)(ix)(A) of this section 

and that are assigned to a groundfish 

license with an MLOA of less than 60 

feet LOA may be transferred separately 

from the groundfish license to which 

that Aleutian Island area endorsement 

was originally issued to another 

groundfish license provided that the 

groundfish license to which that 

Aleutian Island endorsement is 

transferred: 

(1) Was not derived in whole or in 

part from the qualifying fishing history 

of an AFA vessel; 

(2) Has a catcher vessel designation; 

(3) Has a trawl gear designation; 

(4) Has an MLOA of less than 60 feet 

LOA; and 

(5) A complete transfer application is 

submitted to the Regional Administrator 

as described under this paragraph (k)(7), 

and that application is approved. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. In § 679.7, paragraphs (i)(2) through 

(i)(5), and paragraph (i)(8)(i) are revised 

to read as follows: 

§ 679.7 Prohibitions. 

* * * * * 

(i) * * * 

(2) Conduct directed fishing for 

license limitation groundfish without a 

legible copy of a valid groundfish 

license, except as provided in 

§ 679.4(k)(2); 

(3) Conduct directed fishing for LLP 

crab species without a legible copy of a 

valid crab license, except as provided in 

§ 679.4(k)(2); 

(4) Process license limitation 

groundfish on board a vessel without a 

legible copy of a valid groundfish 

license with a catcher/processor 

designation; 

(5) Process LLP crab species on board 

a vessel without a legible copy of a valid 

crab species LLP license with a catcher/ 

processor designation; 

* * * * * 

(8) * * * 

(i) Without a copy of a valid scallop 

license on board; 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. E9–19568 Filed 8–13–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 680 

[Docket No. 080630808–91192–03] 

RIN 0648–AW97 

Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic 

Zone Off Alaska; Bering Sea/Aleutian 

Islands Crab Rationalization Program; 

Amendment 28 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: NMFS issues regulations 

implementing Amendment 28 to the 

Fishery Management Plan for Bering 

Sea/Aleutian Islands King and Tanner 

Crabs (FMP). These regulations amend 

the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands Crab 

Rationalization Program to allow postdelivery transfers of all types of 

individual fishing quota and individual 

processing quota to cover overages. This 

action is necessary to improve flexibility 

of the fleet, reduce the number of 

violations for overages, reduce 

enforcement costs, and allow more 

complete harvest of crab allocations. 

This action is intended to promote the 

goals and objectives of the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act, the FMP, and other 

applicable laws. 

DATES: Effective September 14, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: This action was 

categorically excluded from the need to 

prepare an environmental assessment or 

environmental impact statement under 

the National Environmental Policy Act. 

Copies of Amendment 28, the 

categorical exclusion memorandum, and 

the Regulatory Impact Review/Final 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (RIR/ 

FRFA) prepared for this action, as well 

as the Environmental Impact Statement 

prepared for the Crab Rationalization 

Program, may be obtained from the 

NMFS Alaska Region website at http:// 

alaskafisheries.noaa.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Glenn Merrill or Rachel Baker, 907– 

586–7228. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The king 

and Tanner crab fisheries in the 

exclusive economic zone of the Bering 

Sea and Aleutian Islands (BSAI) are 

managed under the Fishery 

Management Plan for Bering Sea/ 

Aleutian Islands King and Tanner Crabs 

(FMP). The FMP was prepared by the 

North Pacific Fishery Management 

Council under the Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). 

Amendments 18 and 19 to the FMP 

implemented the BSAI Crab 

Rationalization Program (CR Program). 

Regulations implementing Amendments 

18 and 19 were published on March 2, 

2005 (70 FR 10174), and are located at 

50 CFR part 680. 

Background 

Under the CR Program, NMFS issued 

quota share (QS) to persons based on 

their qualifying harvest histories in the 

BSAI crab fisheries during a specific 

time period. Each year, the QS issued to 

a person yields an amount of individual 

fishing quota (IFQ), which is a permit 

that provides an exclusive harvesting 

privilege for a specific amount of raw 

crab pounds, in a specific crab fishery, 

in a given season. The size of each 

annual IFQ allocation is based on the 

amount of QS held by a person in 

relation to the total QS pool in a crab 

fishery. For example, a person holding 

QS equaling 1 percent of the QS 

computation pool in a crab fishery 

receives IFQ to harvest 1 percent of the 

annual total allowable catch (TAC) in 

that crab fishery. Catcher/processor 

license holders were allocated catcher/ 

processor vessel owner (CPO) QS for 

their LLP license’s history as catcher/ 

processors; catcher vessel license 

holders were issued catcher vessel 

owner (CVO) QS based on their LLP 

license’s catcher vessel history. 

Under the CR Program, 97 percent of 

the initial allocation of QS was issued 

to LLP license holders as CPO or CVO 

QS. The remaining three percent was 

issued to vessel captains and crew as ‘‘C 

shares’’ based on their harvest histories 

as crew members onboard crab fishing 

vessels. Of the CVO IFQ, 90 percent is 

issued as ‘‘A shares,’’ or ‘‘Class A IFQ,’’ 

which, in most fisheries, is subject to 

regional landing requirements and must 

be delivered to a processor holding 

unused individual processor quota 

(IPQ). This regional landing requirement 

is commonly referred to as 

‘‘regionalization.’’ The remaining 10 

percent of the annual vessel owner IFQ 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 156 / Friday, August 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 41093 

is issued as ‘‘B shares,’’ or ‘‘Class B 

IFQ,’’ which may be delivered to any 

processor and is not subject to 

regionalization. C shares also are not 

subject to regionalization. 

Processor quota shares are long term 

shares issued to processors. These 

processor quota shares yield annual 

IPQ, which represents a privilege to 

receive a certain amount of crab 

harvested with Class A IFQ. IPQ are 

issued for 90 percent of the CVO TAC, 

creating a one-to-one correspondence 

between Class A IFQ and IPQ. 

NMFS can issue IFQ to the QS holder 

directly, or to a crab harvesting 

cooperative composed of multiple QS 

holders who have assigned their annual 

IFQ to the cooperative. Crab harvesting 

cooperatives have been used extensively 

by QS holders to allow them to receive 

a larger IFQ allotment and coordinate 

deliveries and price negotiations among 

numerous quota holders and vessel 

owners. Most QS holders joined 

cooperatives in the first four years of the 

CR Program and are likely to continue 

membership because of the economic 

and administrative benefits of 

consolidating their IFQs. 

IFQ Overages Prior to this Final Rule 

Implementing Amendment 28 

Prior to Amendment 28, IFQ permit 

holders, including QS holders, lessees, 

and cooperatives, were prohibited from 

exceeding the amount of IFQ that was 

issued to them (see § 680.7(e)(2)). If a 

harvester delivered more crab than the 

amount of IFQ that he held, he 

committed a violation of regulations, 

commonly referred to as an ‘‘overage’’. 

Overages occur either through deliberate 

actions, or more commonly through 

unintentional errors such as 

miscalculating the weight of catch to be 

delivered relative to the amount of IFQ 

available. Because harvesters do not 

know the precise weight of a delivery of 

crab, estimates made onboard the vessel 

using a sample of average weight may be 

lower than the actual delivery weight. If 

a harvester is making his or her last 

fishing trip for a season and insufficient 

IFQ is available in his or her account, 

an overage would occur. In most cases, 

harvesters attempted to account for 

potential overages by maintaining catch 

below their IFQ holdings, slightly 

underharvesting the maximum amount 

of crab. 

Similarly, processors were prohibited 

from receiving more Class A IFQ than 

the amount of unused IPQ that they 

held (see regulations at § 680.7(a)(5)). 

Generally, processors establish 

relationships with specific harvesters 

before crab fishing begins and may not 

have unused IPQ available to receive 

crab from harvesters that do not have an 

established relationship with that 

processor. Under the provisions of the 

CR Program’s Arbitration System, 

harvesters can choose to commit their 

Class A IFQ to match the IPQ held by 

processors (see regulations at § 680.20). 

Once IFQ shares are committed and 

matched with a specific amount of IPQ, 

that IPQ cannot be matched to another 

harvester’s IFQ without first removing 

the match from the harvester who 

committed delivery of Class A IFQ crab 

to the IPQ held by that processor. 

Removing a match of Class A IFQ and 

IPQ requires the consent of the 

harvester. Therefore, it is possible that 

a processor holding IPQ may not have 

any available unmatched IPQ if a 

harvester were to deliver more Class A 

IFQ than the amount specified on his 

IFQ permit. For this reason, processors 

typically refuse to accept a delivery of 

Class A IFQ that is greater than the 

amount of available unmatched IPQ. 

Although matching Class A IFQ and 

IPQ among the numerous harvesters and 

processors can be complicated, overages 

are uncommon. In the first two crab 

fishing years under the CR Program 

(2005–2006 and 2006–2007), most of the 

IFQs were harvested and few overages 

occurred. There were 16 overages in the 

first year and 25 in the second year 

under the CR Program. These overages 

represented less than 0.1 percent (1/ 

1000) of the TAC in each year. 

Effects of the Action 

The following sections briefly 

describe the effects of allowing postdelivery transfers to cover overages of 

IPQ as well as Class A IFQ, Class B IFQ, 

C shares, and CPO IFQ. Additional 

discussion of the rationale for and 

effects of this action is provided in the 

preamble to the proposed rule 

published on December 12, 2008 (73 FR 

75661), and is not repeated here. 

Under this final rule, there is no limit 

on the size of a post-delivery transfer or 

on the number of post-delivery transfers 

a person could make. However, a person 

may not begin a new fishing trip for a 

crab QS fishery (e.g., snow crab) if any 

of the IFQ accounts of the IFQ permits 

available to be used on a vessel are zero 

or negative for that crab QS fishery, and 

no person may have a negative balance 

in an IFQ or IPQ account after June 30, 

the end of a crab fishing year. For IFQ 

holders, no person may begin a new 

fishing trip in a crab QS fishery until the 

overage is accounted for and the IFQ 

balances of the persons onboard that 

vessel for that crab QS fishery are 

positive. 

The final rule defines the term 

‘‘fishing trip’’ for crab QS fisheries as 

the period beginning when a vessel 

operator commences harvesting crab in 

a crab QS fishery and ending when the 

vessel operator offloads or transfers any 

crab, whether processed or unprocessed, 

from that crab QS fishery from that 

vessel. Under the definition in this final 

rule, a fishing trip starts with the first 

harvest in a crab QS crab fishery and 

continues until the beginning of a 

delivery of crab from a catcher vessel, or 

the beginning of offloading or 

transferring of processed crab from a 

catcher/processor. This definition 

ensures that a vessel operator cannot 

commence fishing for a crab QS fishery 

on any vessel until all the IFQ accounts 

of all IFQ permits used onboard that 

vessel are positive for that crab QS 

fishery. This provision is intended to 

discourage harvesters from continuing 

to debit crab against their IFQ account 

for numerous fishing trips and run an 

increasingly negative balance without 

ensuring that there is adequate available 

unused IFQ that can be transferred to 

cover that negative balance. This 

provision allows a vessel operator to 

begin a fishing trip for one crab QS 

fishery (e.g., snow crab) provided the 

harvester had unused IFQ in that 

fishery, even if that harvester had a 

negative balance in another crab QS 

fishery (e.g., Bristol Bay red king crab). 

However, in this example, if a vessel 

operator harvested (i.e., caught and 

retained) any Bristol Bay red king crab 

while fishing for snow crab, the 

harvester would be in violation of the 

regulations. This final rule does not 

modify existing regulations that require 

that IFQ issued to a cooperative may be 

transferred only between cooperatives, 

and that IFQ held outside of 

cooperatives may be transferred only to 

another person who holds that IFQ 

outside of a cooperative. 

This action minimizes the risk of 

negative IFQ or IPQ accounts by 

prohibiting an IFQ or IPQ holder from 

maintaining a negative balance in an 

IFQ or IPQ account after the end of the 

crab fishing year for which that IFQ or 

IPQ account was issued. This final rule 

requires that all post-delivery transfers 

of IFQ or IPQ must be completed by 

June 30 of each year, the end of the crab 

fishing year. Overages that are not 

covered by June 30 of each year can be 

subject to a penalty or other 

enforcement action. Allowing postdelivery transfers will likely reduce the 

number of overages that result in 

forfeiture of catch and other penalties. 

Overall, NMFS anticipates that the 

number of overages at the time of 

landing may increase slightly under this 

action, but overages subject to penalty 

should decline. Harvesters are likely to 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

41094 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 156 / Friday, August 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

realize production efficiency gains 

under this action, which allows greater 

flexibility in harvesting. Under the 

status quo, harvesters may be required 

to wait in port or remain idle on the 

fishing grounds until a transfer can be 

processed and a positive IFQ balance is 

available. Under this final rule, 

harvesters could finish their fishing trip 

and settle the balance when back in 

port. Some production efficiency gains 

should be realized by allowing 

harvesters to more precisely harvest the 

total IFQ allocation with fewer 

uncovered overages. Harvesters are also 

likely to benefit from a reduction in the 

number of overage violations, which 

should be reduced through postdelivery transfers. It is unlikely that 

harvesters will have excessive overages 

by unreasonable reliance on the 

provision for post-delivery transfers 

because the majority of all IFQ issued in 

crab QS fisheries is Class A IFQ, which 

harvesters can choose to match with IPQ 

held by processors before crab fishing 

begins (see IFQ Overages Prior to This 

Final Rule Implementing Amendment 

28 section above). Persons holding IFQ 

outside of a cooperative may have a 

limited opportunity to make postdelivery transfers because most IFQ 

allocations are assigned to cooperatives. 

This action has limited impacts on 

processors. Processors should have few 

overages, since overages can be avoided 

by simply refusing delivery of landings 

in excess of IPQ holdings. Only when a 

harvester has an IFQ overage that is 

covered by a post-delivery transfer of 

Class A IFQ might a processor need to 

obtain IPQ to cover an overage. 

This action requires NMFS to debit 

IPQ accounts if a processor accepts 

delivery of Class A IFQ in excess of the 

amount of Class A IFQ that is matched 

with that processor. Prior to this action, 

NMFS has not debited an IPQ account 

if an excess of Class A IFQ was 

delivered because NMFS did not wish 

to encourage waste by having processors 

refuse delivery of Class A IFQ, or debit 

an IPQ account of a processor and 

potentially cause the processor to 

exceed his IPQ account due to the 

actions of a harvester. However, with 

this final rule, NMFS will debit the IPQ 

account of a processor that accepts Class 

A IFQ in excess of the amount in its IPQ 

account. At the time of landing, NMFS 

will assume the landing overage will be 

covered by a subsequent post-delivery 

transfer to balance the IPQ account. 

Summary of Regulatory Changes 

This action makes the following 

changes to the existing regulatory text at 

50 CFR part 680: 

• Add a new definition for the term 

‘‘fishing trip’’ at § 680.2; 

• Modify the existing prohibition at 

§ 680.7(a)(5) to clarify that a person may 

not receive Class A IFQ greater than the 

amount of unused IPQ that person holds 

in a crab QS fishery unless they 

subsequently receive unused IPQ before 

the end of the crab fishing year to 

ensure their final yearly IPQ balance is 

not negative; 

• Modify the existing prohibition at 

§ 680.7(e)(2) to clarify that a person 

cannot begin a fishing trip with a vessel 

in a crab QS fishery if the total amount 

of unharvested crab IFQ that is currently 

held in the IFQ accounts of all crab IFQ 

permit holders or Crab IFQ Hired 

Masters onboard that vessel for that crab 

QS fishery is zero or less; and 

• Add a prohibition at § 680.7(e)(3) to 

prohibit a person from having a negative 

balance in an IFQ or IPQ account for a 

crab QS fishery after the end of the crab 

fishing year for which that IFQ or IPQ 

permit was issued. 

Notice of Availability and Proposed 

Rule 

NMFS published the notice of 

availability for Amendment 28 on 

November 25, 2008 (73 FR 71598), with 

a public comment period that closed on 

January 24, 2009. NMFS published the 

proposed rule to implement 

Amendment 28 on December 12, 2008 

(73 FR 75661), and the public comment 

period closed on January 26, 2009. Two 

public comments were received 

regarding Amendment 28 and the 

proposed rule. These are summarized 

and responded to below. 

Response to Comments 

Comment 1: The commenter raises 

general concerns about fisheries 

management, asserting that fishery 

policies have not been to the benefit of 

American citizens. 

Response: The comment provided 

opinions of the federal government’s 

general management of marine 

resources and was not specific to the 

proposed action. The comment did not 

raise new issues or concerns that have 

not been addressed in the RIR/IRFA 

prepared to support this action or the 

preamble to the proposed rule. 

Comment 2: The commenter asserts 

that NMFS is biased and should not be 

allowed to manage fisheries. 

Response: This comment is not 

specifically related to the proposed rule 

and recommends broad changes to 

fisheries management that are outside of 

the scope of this action. 

Changes from the Proposed Rule 

NMFS did not make any substantive 

changes from the proposed to the final 

rule but made one editorial change to 

the regulatory language at § 680.7(e)(2) 

for clarity. 

Classification 

The Assistant Administrator for 

Fisheries, NOAA, has determined that 

Amendment 28 is necessary for the 

conservation and management of the 

BSAI crab fisheries and that it is 

consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act and other applicable laws. 

This final rule has been determined to 

be not significant for purposes of 

Executive Order 12866. 

A FRFA was prepared that describes 

the economic impact that this action has 

on small entities. The RIR/FRFA 

prepared for this final rule is available 

from NMFS (see ADDRESSES). The RIR/ 

FRFA prepared for this final rule 

incorporates by reference an extensive 

RIR/FRFA prepared for Amendments 18 

and 19 to the FMP that detailed the 

impacts of the CR Program on small 

entities. 

The FRFA for this action describes the 

action, why this action is being 

proposed, the objectives and legal basis 

for the final rule, the type and number 

of small entities to which the final rule 

applies, and projected reporting, 

recordkeeping, and other compliance 

requirements of the final rule. It also 

identifies any overlapping, duplicative, 

or conflicting federal rules and 

describes any significant alternatives to 

the final rule that accomplish the stated 

objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Act 

and other applicable statutes, and that 

would minimize any significant adverse 

economic impact of the final rule on 

small entities. The description of the 

action, its purpose, and its legal basis 

are described in the preamble and are 

not repeated here. 

The proposed rule for this action was 

published on December 12, 2008 (73 FR 

75661). An IRFA was prepared and 

summarized in the classifications 

section of the preamble to the proposed 

rule. The public comment period ended 

on January 26, 2009. NMFS received 

two public submissions on Amendment 

28 and the proposed rule. These 

comments did not address the IRFA. 

For purposes of a FRFA, the Small 

Business Administration (SBA) has 

established that a business involved in 

fish harvesting is a small business if it 

is independently owned and operated, 

not dominant in its field of operation 

(including its affiliates), and has 

combined annual gross receipts not in 

excess of $4.0 million for all its 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 156 / Friday, August 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 41095 

affiliated operations worldwide. A 

seafood processor is a small business if 

it is independently owned and operated, 

not dominant in its field of operation, 

and employs 500 or fewer persons on a 

full-time, part-time, temporary, or other 

basis at all its affiliated operations 

worldwide. 

Because the SBA does not have a size 

criterion for businesses that are 

involved in both the harvesting and 

processing of seafood products, NMFS 

has in the past applied and continues to 

apply SBA’s fish harvesting criterion for 

those businesses because catcher/ 

processors are first and foremost fish 

harvesting businesses. Therefore, a 

business involved in both the harvesting 

and processing of seafood products is a 

small business if it meets the $4.0 

million criterion for fish harvesting 

operations. NMFS currently is 

reviewing its small entity size 

classification for all catcher/processors 

in the United States. However, until 

new guidance is adopted, NMFS will 

continue to use the annual receipts 

standard for catcher/processors. 

The FRFA contains a description and 

estimate of the number of small entities 

to which this final rule will apply. The 

FRFA estimates that 44 entities received 

IFQ allocations. Of these, 31 were 

considered small entities. Estimates of 

small entities holding IPQ are based on 

the number of employees of IPQ holding 

entities. Currently, 24 entities receive 

IPQ allocations. Of these, 13 are 

considered small entities. 

This action directly regulates all 

holders of IFQ and IPQ, who could 

engage in post-delivery transfers to 

cover overages. Estimates of the number 

of small entities holding IFQ are based 

on estimates of gross revenues. Since 

many IFQs are held by cooperatives, 

landings data from the most recent 

season for which data are available in 

the crab fisheries (2006–2007) were 

used to estimate the number of small 

entities. 

All of the directly regulated entities 

are expected to benefit from this action 

relative to the status quo alternative 

because the action allows greater 

flexibility and a period of time in which 

to reconcile overages. Class A IFQ 

holders are expected to benefit the most 

because Class A IFQ comprises the 

majority of all IFQ issued in crab QS 

fisheries, and this action will provide all 

IFQ holders greater flexibility to 

maximize harvests of their allocations 

without risking overages. Persons 

holding IFQ outside of a cooperative are 

expected to benefit the least from this 

action because only a small portion of 

the total IFQ issued is issued to persons 

who hold IFQ outside of cooperatives, 

and they have a limited pool of persons 

with whom to negotiate transfers. 

Among the three alternatives 

considered for this action, Alternative 2 

(implemented by this rule) would best 

minimize potential adverse economic 

impacts on the directly regulated 

entities. Under the status quo 

(Alternative 1), no post-delivery 

transfers would be allowed and small 

entities would continue to be penalized 

for overages. Alternative 3 would have 

allowed post-delivery transfers, but with 

more limitations and restrictions than 

Alternative 2, the alternative that 

provides small entities the most 

flexibility to cover overages. 

Recordkeeping and Reporting 

Requirements 

This final rule does not change 

existing reporting, recordkeeping, or 

other compliance requirements. Any 

person wishing to cover an overage will 

be required to engage in a transfer of 

IFQ (or IPQ, in the case of a processor). 

The required reporting and 

recordkeeping for a post-delivery 

transfer is the same as for any other 

transfer of IFQ (or IPQ). NMFS’ 

Restricted Access Management (RAM) 

Division will continue to oversee share 

accounts and share use. At the time of 

landing, RAM will maintain a record of 

any overage, but instead of reporting 

overages to NOAA Office of Law 

Enforcement immediately, RAM will 

defer reporting until June 30, the end of 

the crab fishing year. RAM will use the 

same process for post-delivery transfers 

as currently used under regulations at 

§ 680.41. 

Small Entity Compliance Guide 

NMFS has posted a small entity 

compliance guide on its website at 

http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/ 

sustainablefisheries/crab/rat/ 

progfaq.htm to satisfy the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 requirement for a 

plain language guide to assist small 

entities in complying with this rule. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 680 

Alaska, Fisheries. 

Dated: August 10, 2009. 

John Oliver, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator For 

Operations, National Marine Fisheries 

Service. 

■ For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, 50 CFR part 680 is amended 

as follows: 

PART 680—SHELLFISH FISHERIES OF 

THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE 

OFF ALASKA 

■ 1. The authority citation for 50 CFR 

part 680 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1862; Pub. L. 109– 

241; Pub. L. 109–479. 

■ 2. In § 680.2, the term ‘‘Fishing trip for 

purposes of § 680.7(e)(2)’’ is added in 

alphabetical order to read as follows: 

§ 680.2 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Fishing trip for purposes of 

§ 680.7(e)(2) means the period beginning 

when a vessel operator commences 

harvesting crab in a crab QS fishery and 

ending when the vessel operator 

offloads or transfers any processed or 

unprocessed crab in that crab QS fishery 

from that vessel. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. In § 680.7, paragraphs (a)(5) and 

(e)(2) are revised, and paragraph (e)(3) is 

added to read as follows: 

§ 680.7 Prohibitions. 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

(5) Receive any crab harvested under 

a Class A IFQ permit in excess of the 

total amount of unused IPQ held by the 

RCR in a crab QS fishery unless that 

RCR subsequently receives unused IPQ 

by transfer as described under § 680.41 

that is at least equal to the amount of all 

Class A IFQ received by that RCR in that 

crab QS fishery before the end of the 

crab fishing year for which an IPQ 

permit was issued. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(2) Begin a fishing trip for crab in a 

crab QS fishery with a vessel if the total 

amount of unharvested crab IFQ that is 

currently held in the IFQ accounts of all 

crab IFQ permit holders or Crab IFQ 

Hired Masters aboard that vessel in that 

crab QS fishery is zero or less. 

(3) Have a negative balance in an IFQ 

or IPQ account for a crab QS fishery 

after the end of the crab fishing year for 

which an IFQ or IPQ permit was issued. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. E9–19567 Filed 8–13–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES