31196 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 124 / Tuesday, June 30, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

(1) Are furnished to outpatients; 

(2) Are furnished by or under the 

direction of a physician or dentist; and 

(3) Are furnished by an institution 

that— 

(i) Is licensed or formally approved as 

a hospital by an officially designated 

authority for State standard-setting; and 

(ii) Meets the requirements for 

participation in Medicare as a hospital; 

and 

(4) May be limited by a Medicaid 

agency in the following manner: A 

Medicaid agency may exclude from the 

definition of ‘‘outpatient hospital 

services’’ those types of items and 

services that are not generally furnished 

by most hospitals in the State. 

* * * * * 

§ 440.169 [Amended] 

■ 7. Section 440.169 is amended by 

removing and reserving paragraph (c). 

■ 8. Section 440.170(a)(1) is revised to 

read as follows: 

§ 440.170 Any other medical care or 

remedial care recognized under State law 

and specified by the Secretary. 

(a) Transportation. (1) 

‘‘Transportation’’ includes expenses for 

transportation and other related travel 

expenses determined to be necessary by 

the agency to secure medical 

examinations and treatment for a 

recipient. 

* * * * * 

PART 441—SERVICES: 

REQUIREMENTS AND LIMITS 

APPLICABLE TO SPECIFIC SERVICES 

■ 9. The authority citation for part 441 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Sec. 1102 of the Social Security 

Act (42 U.S.C. 1302). 

■ 10. Section 441.18 is amended by 

removing and reserving paragraphs 

(a)(5), and (a)(8)(vi); removing 

(a)(8)(viii); and revising paragraph (c) to 

read as follows: 

§ 441.18 Case management services. 

* * * * * 

(c) Case management does not 

include, and FFP is not available in 

expenditures for, services defined in 

§ 441.169 of this chapter when the case 

management activities constitute the 

direct delivery of underlying medical, 

educational, social, or other services to 

which an eligible individual has been 

referred, including for foster care 

programs, services such as, but not 

limited to, the following: 

(1) Research gathering and completion 

of documentation required by the foster 

care program. 

(2) Assessing adoption placements. 

(3) Recruiting or interviewing 

potential foster care parents. 

(4) Serving legal papers. 

(5) Home investigations. 

(6) Providing transportation. 

(7) Administering foster care 

subsidies. 

(8) Making placement arrangements. 

* * * * * 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Program No. 93.773, Medical Assistance 

Program.) 

Dated: June 5, 2009. 

Charlene Frizzera, 

Acting Administrator, Centers for Medicare 

& Medicaid Services. 

Approved: June 17, 2009. 

Kathleen Sebelius, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E9–15345 Filed 6–29–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4120–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid 

Services 

42 CFR Part 433 

[CMS–2275–F2] 

RIN 0938–AP74 

Medicaid Program; Health CareRelated Taxes 

AGENCY: Centers for Medicare & 

Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This rule finalizes our 

proposal to delay enforcement of certain 

clarifications regarding standards for 

determining hold harmless 

arrangements in the final rule entitled, 

‘‘Medicaid Program; Health CareRelated Taxes’’ from the expiration of a 

Congressional moratorium on 

enforcement from July 1, 2009 to June 

30, 2010. 

DATES: Effective Date: These regulations 

are effective on July 1, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Stuart Goldstein, (410) 786–0694. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

Section 1903(w) of the Social Security 

Act (the Act) provides for a reduction of 

Federal Medicaid funding based on 

State health care-related taxes unless 

those taxes are imposed on a 

permissible class of health care services; 

broad based, applying to all providers 

within a class; uniform, such that all 

providers within a class must be taxed 

at the same rate; and are not part of hold 

harmless arrangements in which 

collected taxes are returned, whether 

directly or indirectly. A similar hold 

harmless restriction applies to providerrelated donations. Section 1903(w)(3)(E) 

of the Act specifies that the Secretary 

shall approve broad based (and uniform) 

waiver applications if the net impact of 

the health care-related tax is generally 

redistributive and the amount of the tax 

is not directly correlated to Medicaid 

payments. The broad based and 

uniformity requirements are waivable 

through a statistical test that measures 

the degree to which the Medicaid 

program incurs a greater tax burden 

than if these requirements were met. 

The permissible class of health care 

services and hold harmless 

requirements cannot be waived. The 

statute and Federal regulation identify 

19 permissible classes of health care 

items or services that States can tax 

without triggering a penalty against 

Medicaid expenditures. 

On February 22, 2008, we published 

a final rule entitled, ‘‘Medicaid Program; 

Health Care-Related Taxes’’ (73 FR 

9685). This final rule amended 

provisions governing the determination 

of whether health care provider taxes or 

donations constitute ‘‘hold harmless’’ 

arrangements, codified statutory 

changes to the indirect guarantee 

threshold test and the definition of the 

class of managed care organization 

services, and deleted certain obsolete 

transition period regulatory provisions. 

The rule codified the reduction in the 

indirect guarantee threshold test in 

order to reduce the allowable amount 

that can be collected from a health carerelated tax for the period of January 1, 

2008, through September 30, 2011, as 

required by the Tax Relief and Health 

Care Act of 2006 (Pub. L. 109–432). The 

rule also codified changes to the 

permissible class of health care items or 

services related to managed care 

organizations as enacted by the Deficit 

Reduction Act of 2005 (Pub. L. 109– 

171). 

The February 22, 2008 final rule 

became effective on April 22, 2008. 

However, section 7001(a)(3)(C) of the 

Supplemental Appropriations Act of 

2008, Pub. L. No. 110–252, imposed a 

partial moratorium until April 1, 2009, 

prohibiting CMS from taking any action 

to implement any provisions of the final 

rule that are more restrictive than the 

provisions in effect on February 21, 

2008, with the exception of the change 

in the statutory definition of the class of 

services of a managed care organization 

and the statutorily-required change to 

the indirect guarantee threshold test. 

This moratorium was extended by 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 124 / Tuesday, June 30, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 31197 

section 5003(a) of the American 

Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 

(the Recovery Act), Public Law 111–5, 

until July 1, 2009. Although not subject 

to the moratorium, a statutorily 

established transition period was 

established until October 1, 2009, for 

those States with previously enacted 

health care-related taxes under the 

previous definition of Medicaid 

managed care organization services. 

On May 6, 2009, we published a 

proposed rule (74 FR 21230) that 

delayed the enforcement of the changes 

made in the February 22, 2008 final rule 

to the hold harmless tests under 

§ 433.54(c) and § 433.68(f), other than 

the statutorily-required change to the 

indirect guarantee threshold level, until 

June 30, 2010. This portion of the 

regulation has been the subject of the 

Congressional moratoria and has not yet 

been implemented by CMS. We 

explained that the delay was necessary 

in order to determine whether 

additional clarification or guidance is 

necessary or helpful to our State 

partners. In addition, we explained that 

certain States were concerned that the 

regulatory language is broad or unclear. 

Furthermore, we indicated that the 

delay would allow more time to obtain 

information about the potential impact 

of the rule and alternative approaches, 

and to ensure appropriate 

implementation of the statutory 

restrictions on provider taxes and 

donations. 

II. Provisions of the Proposed Rule and 

Response to Comments 

In the May 6, 2009 proposed rule (74 

FR 21230), we proposed to delay 

enforcement of certain provisions 

concerning hold harmless arrangements, 

for 1 year. We received a total of 11 

timely comments from national hospital 

associations, State Medicaid Agencies, 

and the National Association of State 

Medicaid Directors. The comments 

supported our decision to delay 

enforcement of certain clarifications 

regarding standards for determining 

hold harmless arrangements in the final 

rule entitled, ‘‘Medicaid Program; 

Health Care-Related Taxes’’ from the 

expiration of a Congressional 

moratorium on enforcement on July 1, 

2009 to June 30, 2010. We appreciate 

these comments and agree that the delay 

in enforcement of these specific 

provisions is merited. A summary of the 

public comments we received, and our 

responses to comments, are set forth 

below. 

Comment: Several commenters 

expressed support for CMS in delaying 

enforcement of clarifications regarding 

standards for determining hold harmless 

arrangements. Commenters indicated 

that this delay would enable the Agency 

to further examine the impact of 

changes on States and providers. The 

commenters felt that any change to 

current policy should be carefully 

considered to ensure that it would not 

negatively affect the ability of State 

Medicaid programs to maintain 

coverage and payment levels. Some 

commenters believe that the provisions 

of the rule relating to the hold harmless 

provision overstepped the authority and 

guidelines provided by Congress. 

Commenters encouraged CMS to work 

with States to develop objective 

standards by which the hold harmless 

provisions for health care-related taxes 

can be measured. 

Response: We appreciate the 

commenters’ support for the delay in 

enforcement of the clarifications 

regarding standards for determining 

hold harmless arrangements. We will 

continue to work with States to ensure 

that Federal statutory requirements are 

met. We are committed not only to 

applying objective analysis in 

determining whether State tax programs 

contain hold harmless arrangements but 

also to working with each State on a 

case-by-case basis, given the unique 

nature of the programs, to ensure 

implementation of permissible tax 

programs. 

As indicated by the commenters, the 

delay will provide us with time to 

determine whether further clarification 

or guidance is needed and would be of 

assistance to States. The delay will also 

allow more time to obtain information 

about the potential impacts of the rule 

and alternative approaches as well as to 

assure the appropriate implementation 

of the statutory restrictions. 

Comment: Several commenters stated 

that the current provisions of the hold 

harmless test specified in the March 23, 

2007 (72 FR 13726) proposed rule do 

not represent a reasonable interpretation 

of Federal statutory guidelines. 

Commenters believe that the hold 

harmless clarifications should be 

rescinded in their entirety and returned 

to the original regulatory language from 

the August 13, 1993 (58 FR 43156) final 

rule. These commenters stated that the 

1993 regulatory language represented 

clearly understood and easily 

interpreted standards. 

Response: Our responsibility is to 

ensure that the Federal statutory 

requirements governing health carerelated taxes are met. Therefore, we 

believe it is necessary and appropriate 

for the Secretary to issue regulatory 

provisions to provide States with clear 

guidance on which health care-related 

tax programs are permissible and 

therefore eligible for Federal Financial 

Participation (FFP). We understand that 

certain States are concerned that the 

current regulatory language may be 

overly broad or unclear. During the 

delay in enforcement, we will work 

with States to learn more about the 

potential impact of the current 

regulatory language and to explore other 

alternatives in order to assure the 

appropriate implementation of the 

statutory restrictions. 

Comment: One commenter 

resubmitted their original comments to 

the March 23, 2007 proposed rule. 

Response: Comments on the March 

23, 2007 proposed rule were previously 

considered and responded to in the 

February 22, 2008 final rule; therefore, 

we are not responding to them in this 

rule. 

III. Provisions of the Final Regulations 

In this final rule, we are adopting the 

provisions as set forth in the May 6, 

2009 proposed rule (74 FR 21232) as 

final, with no changes. 

IV. Waiver of Delay in Effective Date 

We ordinarily provide a 30-day delay 

in the effective date of the provisions of 

a notice in accordance with section 

553(d) of the Administrative Procedures 

Act (APA), at 5 U.S.C. 553(d). We can 

waive the 30-day delay in effective date, 

however, if the Secretary finds, for good 

cause, that it is impracticable, 

unnecessary, or contrary to the public 

interest, and incorporates a statement of 

the finding and the reasons in the 

notice. 

We find there is good cause to waive 

the delay in the effective date of this 

issuance because we find that, since the 

hold harmless provisions of the rule for 

which enforcement will be delayed have 

been subject to Congressional moratoria 

and are not currently being 

implemented, it would be contrary to 

the public interest to implement them 

briefly and then change them back. 

Such sudden, short-term changes would 

result in public confusion and 

administrative chaos. Therefore, under 5 

U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), for good cause, we 

waive notice and comment procedures. 

V. Collection of Information 

Requirements 

This document does not impose 

information collection and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Consequently, it need not be reviewed 

by the Office of Management and 

Budget under the authority of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with RULES
31198 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 124 / Tuesday, June 30, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

VI. Regulatory Impact Analysis 

A. Overall Impact 

We have examined the impact of this 

final rule as required by Executive 

Order 12866 on Regulatory Planning 

and Review (September 30, 1993, as 

further amended), the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (RFA) (September 19, 

1980, Pub. L. 96–354), section 1102(b) of 

the Social Security Act, section 202 of 

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 (Pub. L. 104–4), Executive Order 

13132 on Federalism (August 4, 1999), 

and the Congressional Review Act (5 

U.S.C. 804(2)). 

Executive Order 12866 (as amended 

by Executive Order 13258) directs 

agencies to assess all costs and benefits 

of all available regulatory alternatives 

and, if regulation is necessary, to select 

regulatory approaches that maximize 

net benefits (including potential 

economic, environmental, public health 

and safety effects, distributive impacts, 

and equity). A regulatory impact 

analysis (RIA) must be prepared for 

major rules with economically 

significant effects ($100 million or more 

in any 1 year). 

The final rule on health care-related 

taxes was estimated to result in savings 

to the Federal government, by reducing 

its financial participation in the 

Medicaid program for amounts in excess 

of the tax-related threshold, with 

corresponding responses by States that 

would partially offset these savings. 

Specifically, the RIA for the final rule 

estimated that Federal Medicaid outlays 

would be reduced by $85 million in FY 

2008, and $115 million per year in FY 

2009 through FY 2011. These savings 

resulted directly from applying the 

language in the Tax Relief and Health 

Care Act of 2006 to reduce the 

maximum threshold on exclusion of 

health care-related taxes from 6 percent 

to 5.5 percent of net patient revenue. 

This final rule does not delay 

application of this reduced threshold, 

which is already in effect. This final 

rule delays the provisions governing the 

determination of whether health care 

provider taxes or donations constitute 

‘‘hold harmless’’ arrangements. 

Accordingly, we believe that the delay 

would not have any substantial 

economic effect, and that this final rule 

is not ‘‘economically significant’’ under 

E.O. 12866 or ‘‘major’’ under the 

Congressional Review Act. 

The RFA requires agencies to analyze 

options for regulatory relief of small 

entities if proposed or final rules have 

a ‘‘significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities.’’ 

For purposes of the RFA, small entities 

include small businesses, nonprofit 

organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions, including school districts. 

‘‘Small’’ governmental jurisdictions are 

defined as having a population of less 

than fifty thousand. Individuals and 

States are not included in the definition 

of a small entity. In the final rule on 

health care-related taxes, we analyzed 

potential impacts on small entities that 

might result from the change in the 

exclusion threshold. Some effects (such 

as reduced tax burden) were likely to be 

positive, and some (such as reductions 

in State reimbursement rates) could be 

either positive or negative. All of these 

effects would depend on future State 

decisions on taxation and 

reimbursement that could not be 

predicted and would in any event be 

indirect effects rather than the direct 

result of that rule. Regardless, this rule 

does not propose to delay the change in 

the exclusion threshold. As a result, the 

Secretary has determined that this final 

rule would not have a significant effect 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

In addition, section 1102(b) of the Act 

requires us to prepare a regulatory 

impact analysis, if a rule may have a 

significant impact on the operations of 

a substantial number of small rural 

hospitals. This analysis must conform to 

the provisions of section 604 of the 

RFA. For purposes of section 1102(b) of 

the Act, we define a small rural hospital 

as a hospital that is located outside of 

a Metropolitan Statistical Area and has 

fewer than 100 beds. Our analysis of the 

final rule concluded that it would have 

had no significant direct effect on a 

substantial number of these hospitals. 

This final rule does not impose any new 

requirements. Accordingly, we are not 

preparing an analysis for section 1102(b) 

of the Act because the Secretary has 

determined that this final rule would 

not have a direct impact on the 

operations of a substantial number of 

small rural hospitals. 

Section 202 of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 also 

requires that agencies assess anticipated 

costs and benefits before issuing any 

rule whose mandates require spending 

in any one year of $100 million in 1995 

dollars, updated annually for inflation. 

In 2009, that threshold level is currently 

approximately $133 million. This final 

rule contains no mandates that will 

impose spending costs on State, local, or 

tribal governments in the aggregate, or 

by the private sector, of $133 million. 

Executive Order 13132 on Federalism 

establishes certain requirements that an 

agency must meet when it promulgates 

a proposed rule (and subsequent final 

rule) that imposes substantial direct 

requirements on State and local 

governments, preempts State law, or 

otherwise has Federalism implications. 

EO 13132 focuses on the roles and 

responsibilities of different levels of 

government, and requires Federal 

deference to State policy-making 

discretion when States make decisions 

about the uses of their own funds or 

otherwise make State-level decisions. 

The original final rule, while limiting 

Federal funding, did not circumscribe 

the States’ authority to make policy 

decisions regarding taxes and 

reimbursement. This final rule will 

likewise not have a substantial effect on 

State or local government policy 

discretion. 

B. Anticipated Effects 

As discussed in the February 22, 2008 

final rule, States had a number of 

options open to them in addressing any 

reduction in Federal Financial 

Participation (FFP). They could 

restructure State spending and shift 

funds among programs, raise funds 

through increases in other forms of 

generally applicable tax revenue 

increases, or reduce reimbursement to 

the tax-paying health care providers. 

Presumably, most of those States have 

already made those decisions. The delay 

in this final rule will not affect the tax 

threshold; it will provide some relief to 

States in making other adjustments. 

C. Alternatives Considered 

In the May 6, 2009 proposed rule, we 

welcomed comments not only on the 

delay in enforcement, but also on 

alternatives that may more 

constructively address the underlying 

problems and their likely impacts on 

States and other stakeholders. Some 

commenters recommended that CMS 

rescind rather than delay the 

enforcement of the hold harmless 

provisions. There were no other specific 

alternatives offered by commenters. 

Commenters reiterated that we should 

work with States to develop objective 

standards by which compliance with 

the hold harmless provisions can be 

measured. CMS will take these 

comments into consideration 

throughout the enforcement delay 

period to assure the most appropriate 

implementation of the statutory 

provisions. 

The only other option considered was 

to not finalize this delay in enforcement. 

However, as discussed in the preamble 

to this final rule and the response to 

comments, we believe that this is not 

the best alternative at this time. 

In accordance with the provisions of 

Executive Order 12866, this regulation 

was reviewed by the Office of 

Management and Budget. 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 124 / Tuesday, June 30, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 31199 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Program No. 93.778, Medical Assistance 

Program) 

Dated: June 5, 2009. 

Charlene Frizzera, 

Acting Administrator, Centers for Medicare 

& Medicaid Services. 

Approved: June 17, 2009. 

Kathleen Sebelius, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E9–15347 Filed 6–29–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4120–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 648 

[Docket No. 071130780–8013–02] 

RIN 0648–XQ05 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

Provisions; Fisheries of the 

Northeastern United States; Atlantic 

Sea Scallop Fishery; Closure of the 

Closed Area II Scallop Access Area to 

Scallop Vessels 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Temporary rule; closure. 

SUMMARY: NMFS announces the closure 

of Closed Area II Scallop Access Area 

(CA II) to scallop vessels until June 15, 

2010. This closure is based on a 

determination by the Northeast Regional 

Administrator (RA) that scallop vessels 

will have caught the yellowtail flounder 

(yellowtail) total allowable catch (TAC) 

for the CA II by June 29, 2009. Effective 

0001 hours, June 29, 2009, vessels may 

not fish for scallops in the CA II. Vessels 

on a CA II scallop trip at the time of this 

announcement must leave the CA II 

prior to 0001 hour, June 29, 2009. This 

action is being taken to prevent the 

scallop fleet from exceeding the 

yellowtail TAC allocated to the CA II for 

the 2009 scallop fishing year in 

accordance with the regulations 

implementing the Atlantic Sea Scallop 

Fishery Management Plan (FMP), 

Northeast (NE) Multispecies FMP and 

the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act. 

DATES: The closure of the CA II to all 

scallop vessels is effective 0001 hr local 

time, June 29, 2009, until June 15, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Don 

Frei, Fishery Management Specialist, 

(978) 281–9326, fax (978) 281–9135. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Commercial scallop vessels fishing in 

access areas are allocated 9.8 percent of 

the annual yellowtail TACs established 

in the (NE) Multispecies FMP. Given 

current fishing effort by scallop vessels 

in the CA II, the RA has made a 

determination that the CA II yellowtail 

TAC of 349,358 lb (148.47 mt) is 

projected to be caught on June 29, 2009. 

Pursuant to 50 CFR 648.60(a)(5)(ii)(C) 

and 648.85(c)(3)(ii), this Federal 

Register notice notifies scallop vessel 

owners that, effective 0001 hours on 

June 29, 2009, federally permitted 

scallop vessels are prohibited from 

declaring or initiating a trip into the CA 

II until June 15, 2010. 

If a vessel with a limited access 

scallop permit has an unused trip(s) into 

CA II, it will be allocated 7.9 additional 

open areas days-at-sea (DAS) for each 

unused trip. If a vessel has been 

allocated a broken trip compensation 

trip that cannot be made, it will be 

allocated prorated open area DAS based 

on the remaining allocation and the 

above listed access area DAS conversion 

rate. For example, if a full-time vessel 

had an unused 9,000–lb CA II 

compensation trip (half of the full 

possession limit) at the time of a CA II 

yellowtail TAC closure, the vessel will 

be allocated 3.95 DAS (half of the 7.9 

DAS that would be allocated for a full 

CA II trip). A separate letter will be sent 

to notify vessel owners of their 

allocations for unused trips in the CA II. 

Classification 

This action is required by 50 CFR part 

648 and is exempt from review under 

Executive Order 12866. 

Due to the need to take immediate 

action to close the CA II once the 

yellowtail TAC has been taken, 

pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3) proposed 

rulemaking is waived because it would 

be impracticable and contrary to the 

public interest to allow a period for 

public comment. The CA II opened for 

the 2009 fishing year on June 15, 2009 

Data indicating the scallop fleet has 

taken, or is projected to take, all of the 

CA II yellowtail TAC have only recently 

become available. To allow scallop 

vessels to continue to take trips in the 

CA II during the period necessary to 

publish and receive comments on a 

proposed rule would result in vessels 

taking more yellowtail than allocated to 

the scallop fleet. Excessive yellowtail 

harvest from CA II would result in 

excessive fishing effort on the Georges 

Bank yellowtail stock, where tight effort 

controls are critical for the rebuilding 

program. Should excessive fishing effort 

occur, future management measures 

may need to be more restrictive. Based 

on the above, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), 

proposed rule making is waived because 

it would be impracticable and contrary 

to the public interest to allow a period 

for public comment. Furthermore, for 

the same reasons, there is good cause 

under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to waive the 

30-day delayed effectiveness period for 

this action. 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. 

Dated: June 25, 2009 

Alan D. Risenhoover, 

Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–15432 Filed 6–25–09; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 660 

[Docket No. 090421699–91029–02] 

RIN 0648–XO74 

Fisheries Off West Coast States; 

Coastal Pelagic Species Fisheries; 

Annual Specifications Modification 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: NMFS issues this final rule to 

adjust the harvest specifications for 

Pacific sardine in the U.S. exclusive 

economic zone (EEZ) off the Pacific 

coast for the fishing season of January 1, 

2009, through December 31, 2009. This 

final rule increases the tonnage of 

Pacific sardine allocated for industry 

conducted research from 1200 metric 

tons (mt) to 2400 mt and decreases the 

second and third period directed 

harvest allocations by 750 mt and 450 

mt, respectively. 

DATES: Effective July 1 through 

December 31, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Joshua Lindsay, Southwest Region, 

NMFS, (562) 980–4034. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

February 20, 2009, NMFS published a 

final rule implementing the harvest 

guideline (HG) and annual 

specifications for the 2009 Pacific 

sardine fishing season off the U.S. West 

Coast (74 FR 7826) under the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act, 16 

U.S.C. 1801 et seq (Magnuson-Stevens 

Act). These specifications and 

associated management measures were 


rmajette on PRODPC74 with RULES