[Federal Register: June 20, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 120)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 35084-35088]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr20jn08-12]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 680
[Docket No. 080129098-8743-02]
RIN 0648-AW45
Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Bering Sea
and Aleutian Islands Crab Rationalization Program
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS issues regulations implementing Amendment 26 to the
Fishery Management Plan for Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands King and Tanner
Crabs (FMP). These regulations amend the Crab Rationalization Program.
Amendment 26 amends the FMP to exempt permanently quota share issued to
crew members, and the annual harvest privileges derived from that quota
share, from requirements for delivery to specific processors, delivery
within specific geographic regions, and participation in an arbitration
system to resolve price disputes. This action is intended to promote
the goals and objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation
and Management Act (MSA), the FMP, and other applicable law.
DATES: Effective July 21, 2008.
ADDRESSES: Copies of Amendment 26, the Regulatory Impact Review (RIR)/
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) prepared for this action,
and the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) prepared for the Crab
Rationalization Program may be obtained from the NMFS Alaska Region, P.
O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802 or from the Alaska Region website at
http://www.fakr.noaa.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Glenn Merrill, 907-586-7228.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The king and Tanner crab fisheries in the
[[Page 35085]]
exclusive economic zone of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands (BSAI)
are managed under the FMP. The FMP was prepared by the North Pacific
Fishery Management Council (Council) under the MSA as amended by the
Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-199, section
801). Amendments 18 and 19 to the FMP implemented the BSAI Crab
Rationalization Program (Program). Regulations implementing Amendments
18 and 19 were published on March 2, 2005 (70 FR 10174), and are
located at 50 CFR part 680.
Crab Rationalization Program Overview
Under the Program, NMFS issued four types of quota share (QS) to
persons based on their qualifying harvest histories in the BSAI crab
fisheries during a specific period of time defined under the Program.
The first two types of QS were issued to holders of license limitation
program (LLP) licenses endorsed for a crab fishery. Catcher/processor
LLP license holders were issued catcher/processor vessel owner (CPO) QS
based on the catch history of catcher processors using an LLP license,
and catcher vessel LLP license holders were issued catcher vessel owner
(CVO) QS based on the catch history of catcher vessels using an LLP
license. Under the Program, 97 percent of the QS was initially issued
as CVO and CPO QS. The remaining 3 percent of the QS was initially
issued to vessel captains and crew as ``C shares,'' based on their
harvest histories as crew members onboard crab fishing vessels.
Captains and crew onboard catcher/processor vessels were issued
catcher/processor crew (CPC) QS; and captains and crew onboard catcher
vessels were issued catcher vessel crew (CVC) QS.
Each year, the QS issued to a person yields an amount of individual
fishing quota (IFQ), which is a permit that provides an exclusive
harvest 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. As an example, a person holding QS
equal to one percent of the QS pool in a crab fishery would receive IFQ
to harvest 1 percent of the annual total allowable catch (TAC) in that
crab fishery. NMFS can issue the resulting IFQ to the QS holder
directly, or to a crab harvesting cooperative comprised of multiple QS
holders. Crab harvesting cooperatives have been used extensively by QS
holders to allow them to receive a larger IFQ pool and coordinate
deliveries and price negotiations among numerous vessels. Most QS
holders, including CVC and CPC QS holders, have joined cooperatives in
the first two years of the Program, and are likely to continue to do so
because of the economic and administrative benefits of consolidating
their IFQ.
The IFQ derived from CPO and CPC QS may be harvested and processed
at sea and is not required to be delivered to a specific onshore
processor or stationary floating crab processor, or within a specific
geographic region. However, the IFQ derived from CVO QS is subject to
(1) delivery requirements to a specific onshore processor or stationary
floating crab processor, (2) delivery within specific geographic
regions, also known as regionalization, and (3) requirements to
participate in an arbitration system. The IFQ derived from CVC QS must
be delivered to onshore or stationary floating crab processors, but is
currently exempt from delivery requirements to specific processors,
regionalization requirements, and requirements to participate in the
arbitration system. However, under the existing regulations, CVC QS and
the resulting IFQ will be subject to the same delivery,
regionalization, and arbitration system requirements as CVO QS/IFQ
after June 30, 2008.
When the Program was adopted in 2004, the Council recommended
regularly scheduled reviews of the Program 18 months, three years, and
five years after its implementation to assess specific issues.
Beginning in February 2007, Council staff began preparation of the 18-
month review. Among other issues examined during this review, Council
staff provided a summary of the key issues and concerns relevant to
applying delivery, regionalization, and arbitration system requirements
to CVC QS/IFQ holders. Members of the public noted that applying these
requirements to CVC QS/IFQ holders after June 30, 2008, would limit
their ability to address logistical complications, not provide
flexibility for CVC IFQ holders to deliver to alternative markets if
desired, substantially increase the costs of operation, and not provide
substantial additional stability to processors and communities. Based
on these concerns, in April 2007, the Council tasked staff to prepare
an analysis that would review the implications of permanently exempting
CVC QS/IFQ from delivery, regionalization, and arbitration system
requirements. The Council deliberated over the issue at subsequent
meetings, and in December 2007, recommended permanently exempting CVC
QS/IFQ from all three of these Program requirements.
Notice of Availability and Proposed Rule
NMFS published the notice of availability for Amendment 26 on March
21, 2008 (73 FR 15118), with a public comment period that closed on May
20, 2008. NMFS received no public comments on Amendment 26. The
Secretary of Commerce approved Amendment 26 on June 6, 2008. NMFS
published the proposed rule for this action on March 31, 2008 (73 FR
16830), with a public comment period that closed on May 15, 2008. NMFS
received one public comment on the proposed rule, which is summarized
and responded to below.
Effects of the Action
The following sections briefly describe the effects of permanently
exempting CVC QS/IFQ holders from delivery, regionalization, and the
arbitration system requirements. Additional discussion of the rationale
and effects of this action is provided in the preamble to the proposed
rule (73 FR 16830) and is not repeated here.
Processor delivery requirements. The Program recognizes the
historic participation of processors and communities dependent on crab
processing in the BSAI crab fisheries by requiring that a portion of
the annual TAC be delivered to specific onshore or stationary floating
crab processors. The Program established this linkage by issuing
processor quota shares (PQS) to processors with historic participation
in crab processing during a specific period. PQS yields individual
processor quota (IPQ) on an annual basis that represents a privilege to
receive a certain amount of crab harvested. Currently, 90 percent of
the IFQ derived from CVO QS holders is issued as Class A IFQ. NMFS
issues one pound of IPQ for each pound of Class A IFQ, creating a one-
to-one correspondence between Class A IFQ and IPQ. The remaining 10
percent of the annual CVO IFQ is issued as Class B IFQ, which may be
delivered to any processor and are not required to be delivered to a
processor with unused IPQ.
The Council also recommended that because CVC QS was generated
based on deliveries to onshore or stationary floating crab processors,
it also should be issued as 90 percent Class A IFQ and 10 percent Class
B IFQ. To facilitate CVC QS/IFQ holders and reduce the complex process
matching of Class A IFQ to specific processors with IPQ, the Program
exempted CVC IFQ from issuance as Class A/B IFQ and the
[[Page 35086]]
prohibitions on CVC IFQ leasing for the first three crab fishing years.
This period expires on June 30, 2008 (see 50 CFR 680.41(e) and 50 CFR
680.42(b)(6) and (c)(5)), and was intended to provide CVC QS/IFQ
holders time to adapt to the Program before phasing in these additional
restrictions. Further, the Council recommended that the appropriateness
of applying Class A and B IFQ restrictions should be reviewed 18 months
after the implementation of the Program. The Council anticipated that
applying these restrictions to CVC QS may not be necessary to achieve
the goals of providing additional stability to the processing sector
and communities and could impose additional costs and complexity on CVC
QS/IFQ holders.
The RIR/FRFA prepared for this action by Council and NMFS staff
indicates that the application of Class A IFQ delivery requirements to
CVC IFQ would logistically complicate use of those shares (see
ADDRESSES). Public testimony received during the Council's
deliberations that led to the adoption of Amendment 26 noted concerns
about the complexity of matching shares and asserted that the potential
advantages to processors and communities by establishing these delivery
requirements were outweighed by the additional costs that CVC QS/IFQ
holders would incur. Public testimony from processors and communities
with processing facilities did not dispute this assertion and supported
permanently exempting CVC QS from the requirements that it be issued as
Class A and B IFQ.
Permanently extending the exemption of the Class A/B IFQ delivery
requirements to CVC QS/IFQ holders is not anticipated to have adverse
effects on other participants given the limited number of these shares
relative to CVO, CPO, and CPC QS/IFQ. This thesis is further supported
by the fact that CVC QS/IFQ has been exempt from the Class A IFQ
delivery requirement for the first three years of the Program and no
negative effects were indicated in the RIR/FRFA prepared for this
action. Public testimony provided during Council review of this issue
did not indicate that there would be negative effects on processors or
communities as a result of a permanent exemption from Class A/B
designation for CVC IFQ.
Additionally, based on a review of recent harvest patterns provided
in the RIR/FRFA prepared for this action, CVC IFQ delivery patterns
seem similar to those of Class A IFQ. These patterns could change in
the future so that CVC IFQ would be more likely to be delivered
independently of Class A IFQ to other markets; however, given the
relatively small percentage of the total landings that are assigned to
CVC IFQ onboard a vessel, NMFS does not expect delivery patterns for
CVC IFQ to differ from the delivery patterns currently observed.
Furthermore, even if the delivery patterns of CVC IFQ were to change in
the future, NMFS believes that a shift in such a relatively small
amount of IFQ likely would not have an appreciable effect on overall
processor operations or deliveries to specific communities.
Regionalization. In addition to processor share landing
requirements, Class A IFQ and IPQ are subject to regional landing
requirements. Those shares must be landed and processed in specified
geographic regions. Those regions are described in the EIS prepared for
the Program and the RIR/FRFA prepared for this action (see ADDRESSES).
The Class A IFQ regional delivery requirements vary depending on the
specific crab fishery but generally ensure that a portion of the catch
is delivered within areas that have communities that are active in crab
processing. For most crab fisheries, there are two regions. One region
is typically considered the more remote region. The requirement to land
within the more remote region provides some assurance that the small
number of processors and communities historically active within that
region will continue to receive catch that could otherwise be diverted
to the less remote region.
If CVC IFQ were subject to a Class A/B IFQ designation, then 90
percent of the CVC IFQ would be defined as Class A IFQ and therefore
subject to regionalization. Because the Program exempted CVC IFQ from a
Class A/B IFQ designation through June 30, 2008, to reduce the initial
complexities of matching shares and for the other reasons mentioned in
the previous section, CVC IFQ also was exempted from regionalization.
Given that CVC IFQ is currently exempt from regionalization, and
CVC IFQ is delivered in conjunction with CVO Class A IFQ currently,
NMFS believes that permanently exempting CVC IFQ from regionalization
requirements will not have any noticeable effect on the overall
delivery of CVC IFQ within a given region. Permanently exempting CVC
IFQ from regionalization requirements could provide opportunities to
CVC IFQ holders to use additional markets that would be foreclosed if
those shares were subject to regionalization.
Arbitration System. To aid participants in resolving price and
delivery disputes that may arise among Class A IFQ and IPQ holders, the
Council developed an arbitration system. Regulations at 50 CFR 680.20
require that Class A IFQ and IPQ holders join private arbitration
organizations. These arbitration organizations, in turn, must enter
into contracts that define the procedure for resolving price disputes.
The arbitration system serves several functions to resolve price and
delivery disputes, including establishing a mechanism for the orderly
matching of Class A IFQ with IPQ, developing a market report and non-
binding price formula to inform price negotiations, and providing a
binding arbitration procedure to resolve impasses in negotiations. A
more complete description of the arbitration system is provided in the
RIR/FRFA prepared for this action and the EIS prepared for the Program
(see ADDRESSES). Because the arbitration system applies only to Class A
IFQ, exempting CVC IFQ from Class A/B IFQ designation effectively
exempts CVC IFQ from the arbitration system.
Summary. This rule implements a permanent exemption to delivery,
regionalization, and arbitration system requirements for CVC QS/IFQ
holders. As described in greater detail in the preamble to the proposed
rule (73 FR 16830) and the RIR/FRFA prepared for this action,
permanently extending the exemption from delivery, regionalization, and
arbitration system requirements will allow CVC QS/IFQ holders to avoid
the additional costs and complexity that would result to them if these
exemptions are not granted. Furthermore, providing these exemptions
would not deprive processors and communities of any appreciable
benefits if the delivery , regionalization, and arbitration system
requirements were applied to CVC QS/IFQ.
NMFS modified the Program regulations to remove all instances that
either require or refer to CVC IFQ being redesignated as Class A/B IFQ
after June 30, 2008. These references occur in regulatory text at 50
CFR 680.2, 680.20, 680.21, 680.40, and 680.42.
Response to Comments
Comment 1: Cut all quotas by 50 percent this year and by l0 percent
each year thereafter. The commenter notes that NMFS also permitted
harvests in the Alaska herring fishery and asserts that the herring
fishery adversely affects marine life.
Response: This final rule does not address the allocation of QS or
TAC under the Program and modifying QS or TAC allocation is outside the
scope of this action. This action modifies the nature of CVC IFQ. NMFS
notes that the Alaska Department of Fish and Game
[[Page 35087]]
manages herring fisheries in State of Alaska waters. No change in the
regulations has been made based on this comment.
Changes from the Proposed Rule
NMFS did not make any changes from the proposed rule.
Classification
Consistency with the MSA and Other Laws
The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, has determined
that Amendment 26 is necessary for the conservation and management of
the BSAI crab fisheries and that it is consistent with the MSA and
other applicable laws.
This final rule has been determined to be not significant for
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
An Environmental Impact Statement/Regulatory Impact Review/Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis/Social Impact Assessment was prepared
for the Program that describes the management background, the purpose
and need for the Program, the management alternatives, and the
environmental, social, and economic impacts (see ADDRESSES). With this
final rule, NMFS is continuing to implement the Program.
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA)
A FRFA was prepared for this rule, as required by section 604 of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). Copies of the FRFA prepared for
this final rule are available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES). The FRFA
incorporates the IRFA, a summary of the significant issues raised by
the public comments in response to the IRFA, NMFS( responses to those
comments, and a summary of the analyses completed to support the
action. A summary of the FRFA follows.
Why Action by the Agency is Being Considered and Objectives of, and
Legal Basis for, the Rule
The FRFA describes in detail the reasons why this action is being
proposed, describes the objectives and legal basis for the rule, and
discusses both small and non-small regulated entities to adequately
characterize the fishery participants. The MSA provides the legal basis
for the rule, as discussed in this preamble. The objectives of the rule
are to permanently exempt CVC QS/IFQ holders from delivery,
regionalization, and arbitration system requirements allowing them to
avoid the additional costs and complexity that will result to them if
these exemptions are not granted.
Number of Small Entities to Which the Final Rule Would Apply
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 if it has combined
annual gross receipts not in excess of $4.0 million for all its
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 these 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. NMFS plans to
issue new guidance in the near future.
The FRFA contains a description and estimate of the number of small
entities to which the rule would apply. The FRFA estimates that all of
the 219 individuals hold CVC QS/IFQ and would be directly regulated by
the proposed action. The FRFA notes that estimates of the number of
small CVC QS/IFQ holders under the Program are complicated by limited
share holder information, but, conservatively, the FRFA estimates that
all of the individuals holding CVC QS/IFQ would be considered small
entities.
Public Comments Received on the IRFA
NMFS received no public comments on the IRFA or on the economic
impacts of the rule.
Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements
This rule would not change existing reporting, recordkeeping, or
other compliance requirements.
Comparison of Alternatives
All the directly regulated individuals would be expected to benefit
from the preferred alternative, Alternative 2 (described in this rule)
relative to the status quo alternative because it relieves individuals
from requirements that would increase their costs of operation. Of the
two alternatives considered, status quo and this action, this action
minimizes adverse economic impacts on the individuals that are directly
regulated.
Although the alternatives under consideration in this action would
have distributional and efficiency impacts for individual participants,
such as reducing some operational costs for CVC QS/IFQ holders, in no
case are these impacts in the aggregate expected to be substantial.
Although neither of the alternatives has substantial negative impacts
on small entities, preferred Alternative 2 minimizes the potential
negative impacts that could arise under Alternative 1, the status quo
alternative. Differences in efficiency that could arise are likely to
affect most participants in a minor way having an overall insubstantial
impact. As a consequence, neither alternative is expected to have any
significant economic or socioeconomic impacts. Nevertheless,
Alternative 2 is preferable because it reduces costs of operations for
small entities to a limited degree.
Small Entity Compliance Guide
NMFS has posted a small entity compliance guide on its website at
http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/sustainablefisheries/crab/crfaq.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. Contact NMFS to request a hard copy of the
guide (see ADDRESSES).
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 680
Alaska, Fisheries.
Dated: June 16, 2008.
John Oliver,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Operations, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
0
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
0
1. The authority citation for 50 CFR part 680 continues to read as
follows:
[[Page 35088]]
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1862; Pub. L. 109-241; Pub. L. 109-479.
0
2. In Sec. 680.2, the definitions of ``Arbitration IFQ'', and
``Arbitration QS'' are revised to read as follows:
Sec. 680.2 Definitions.
* * * * *
Arbitration IFQ means:
(1) Class A catcher vessel owner (CVO) IFQ held by a person who is
not a holder of PQS or IPQ and who is not affiliated with any holder of
PQS or IPQ, and
(2) IFQ held by an FCMA cooperative.
Arbitration QS means CVO QS held by a person who is not a holder of
PQS or IPQ and is not affiliated with any holder of PQS or IPQ.
* * * * *
0
3. In Sec. 680.20, paragraphs (a)(1), (b)(1)(i), the introductory text
to paragraph (c), and paragraph (e)(7) are revised to read as follows:
Sec. 680.20 Arbitration System.
(a) * * *
(1) Arbitration System. All CVO QS, Arbitration IFQ, Class A IFQ
holders, PQS and IPQ holders must enter the contracts as prescribed in
this section that establish the Arbitration System. Certain parts of
the Arbitration System are voluntary for some parties, as specified in
this section. All contract provisions will be enforced by parties to
those contracts.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) Holders of CVO QS,
* * * * *
(c) Preseason requirements for joining an Arbitration Organization.
All holders of CVO QS, PQS, Arbitration IFQ, Class A IFQ affiliated
with a PQS or IPQ holder, and IPQ must join and maintain a membership
in an Arbitration Organization as specified in paragraph (d) of this
section. All holders of QS, PQS, IFQ, or IPQ identified in the
preceding sentence must join an Arbitration Organization at the
following times:
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(7) IFQ and IPQ issuance and selection of the Market Analyst,
Formula Arbitrator, and Contract Arbitrator(s). NMFS will not issue CVO
IFQ and IPQ for a crab QS fishery until Arbitration Organizations
establish by mutual agreement contracts with a Market Analyst, Formula
Arbitrator, and Contract Arbitrator(s) for that fishery and notify
NMFS.
* * * * *
0
4. In Sec. 680.21, paragraph (a)(1)(iii)(B) is revised to read as
follows:
Sec. 680.21 Crab harvesting cooperatives.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) * * *
(B) Upon joining a crab harvesting cooperative for a CR fishery,
NMFS will convert all of a QS holder's QS holdings for that CR fishery
to crab harvesting cooperative IFQ.
* * * * *
0
5. In Sec. 680.40, paragraphs (b)(1)(ii), (b)(2)(i)(B), (b)(2)(ii)(C),
(c)(2)(v)(J), (c)(4) introductory text, (h)(2)(i), (h)(2)(ii), and
(h)(6)(ii) are revised to read as follows:
Sec. 680.40 Quota Share (QS), Processor QS (PQS), Individual Fishing
Quota (IFQ), and Individual Processor Quota (IPQ) issuance.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) Catcher Vessel Crew (CVC) QS shall be initially issued to
qualified persons defined in paragraph (b)(3) of this section based on
legal landings of unprocessed crab.
* * * * *
(2) * * *
(i) * * *
(B) South QS if the legal landings that gave rise to the QS for a
crab QS fishery were not landed in the North Region, and all CVO QS
allocated to the WAI crab QS fishery; or
* * * * *
(ii) * * *
(C) CVC QS;
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(2) * * *
(v) * * *
(J) The percentage calculated in paragraph (c)(2)(v)(I) of this
section may be adjusted according to the provisions at paragraphs
(c)(3) and (c)(4) of this section. The amount calculated in paragraph
(c)(2)(v)(H) of this section is multiplied by the percentage for each
region. These regional QS designations do not apply to CVC QS.
* * * * *
(4) Regional designation of Western Aleutian Islands golden king
crab. Fifty percent of the CVO QS that is issued in the WAG crab QS
fishery will be initially issued with a West regional designation. The
West regional designation applies to QS for delivery west of 174[deg]
W. longitude. The remaining 50 percent of the CVO QS initially issued
for this fishery is not subject to regional designation (Undesignated
QS). A person (p) who would receive QS based on the legal landings in
only one region will receive QS with only that regional designation. A
person who would receive QS with more than one regional designation for
that crab QS fishery would have his or her QS holdings regionally
adjusted on a pro rata basis as follows:
* * * * *
(h) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) QS shall yield Class A or Class B IFQ if:
(A) Initially assigned to the CVO QS sector; or
(B) Transferred to the CVO QS sector from the CPO QS sector.
(ii) The Class A/B IFQ TAC is the portion of the TAC assigned as
Class A/B IFQ under paragraphs (h)(2)(i)(A) and (B) of this section.
* * * * *
(6) * * *
(ii) CVC IFQ is not subject to regional designation.
* * * * *
0
6. In Sec. 680.42, paragraph (b)(6) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 680.42 Limitations on use of QS, PQS, IFQ, and IPQ.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(6) Any person harvesting crab under a Class B IFQ, CPO IFQ, CVC
IFQ, or CPC IFQ permit may deliver that crab to any RCR.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. E8-14012 Filed 6-19-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S