[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 177 (Friday, September 12, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 54590-54602]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-21829]



[[Page 54590]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

15 CFR Part 902

50 CFR Part 679

[Docket No. 130530519-4742-02]
RIN 0648-BD35


Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Bering Sea 
and Aleutian Islands Management Area; American Fisheries Act; Amendment 
106

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: NMFS adopts a final rule to implement Amendment 106 to the 
Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian 
Islands Management Area (BSAI FMP). Amendment 106 is necessary to bring 
the BSAI FMP into conformity with the amendments to the American 
Fisheries Act (AFA) in the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010 (Coast 
Guard Act). This rule allows the owner of an AFA vessel to rebuild or 
replace an AFA vessel without any limitation on the length, weight, or 
horsepower of the rebuilt or replacement vessel when the rebuilt or 
replacement vessel is operating in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands 
Management Area (BSAI). This rule also allows the owner of an AFA 
catcher vessel in an inshore cooperative to remove the vessel from the 
cooperative and assign the Bering Sea pollock catch history of the 
removed vessel to one or more vessels in the cooperative. This action 
is also intended to improve vessel safety and operational efficiency in 
the AFA fleet by allowing the rebuilding or replacement of AFA vessels 
with safer and more efficient vessels and by allowing the removal of 
inactive catcher vessels from the AFA fishery. This action is intended 
to promote the goals and objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 
Conservation and Management Act, the AFA, the BSAI FMP, and other 
applicable laws.

DATES: Effective October 14, 2014.

ADDRESSES: An electronic copy of the Regulatory Impact Review/Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (RIR/IRFA or Analysis) prepared for 
this action may be obtained from http://www.regulations.gov or from the 
Alaska Region Web site at https://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/cm/analyses/. An electronic copy of the Proposed Rule (79 FR 34696, June 
18, 2014) may be obtained from http://www.regulations.gov or from the 
Alaska Region Web site at https://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/regs/summary.htm.
    Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other 
aspects of the collection of information requirements contained in this 
final rule may be submitted to NMFS at the above address and by email 
to [email protected] or fax to (202) 395-7285.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Alice McKeen, 907-586-7228.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS manages the groundfish fisheries of the 
BSAI in the Exclusive Economic Zone off Alaska under the BSAI FMP. The 
North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) prepared, and the 
Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) approved, the BSAI FMP pursuant to 
the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-
Stevens Act) and other applicable laws. General regulations that 
pertain to U.S. fisheries appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600. 
Regulations implementing the BSAI FMP appear at 50 CFR part 679. Unless 
noted otherwise, all references to regulations in this rule are to 
regulations in Title 50 of the CFR.
    This final rule implements Amendment 106 to the BSAI FMP. Under 
this rule, the owner of an AFA vessel may rebuild or replace an AFA 
vessel without any limitation on the length, weight, or horsepower of 
the rebuilt or replacement vessel when the rebuilt or replacement 
vessel is operating in the BSAI. Under this rule, the owner of an AFA 
catcher vessel in an inshore cooperative may remove the vessel from the 
inshore cooperative and assign the Bering Sea pollock catch history of 
the removed vessel to one or more vessels in the cooperative to which 
the removed vessel belonged.
    NMFS published the Notice of Availability of Amendment 106 in the 
Federal Register on June 3, 2014 (79 FR 31914), with a 60-day comment 
period that ended on August 4, 2014. The Secretary approved Amendment 
106 on September 2, 2014, after determining that Amendment 106 is 
consistent with the national standards in section 304 of the Magnuson-
Stevens Act, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the AFA, and 
other applicable laws.
    NMFS published a proposed rule to implement Amendment 106 on June 
18, 2014 (79 FR 34696). The 45-day comment period on the proposed rule 
ended August 4, 2014. NMFS received six comment letters on Amendment 
106, the proposed rule, or the Regulatory Impact Review (RIR) for this 
action. Two letters were from the same commenter. The letters addressed 
ten topics. NMFS summarizes and responds to these comments in the 
section of this preamble, ``Comments on the FMP Text or the Proposed 
Rule.''
    NMFS made three changes in the final rule. First, NMFS fixed an 
error, which was an incorrect reference in the proposed rule to another 
part of the proposed rule. Second, in response to the same comment from 
two commenters, NMFS changed the time period after the loss of a vessel 
during which an AFA vessel owner may replace or remove a vessel and not 
experience suspension of the fishing privileges of the lost vessel. 
NMFS changed it from a three-year time period to a five-year time 
period. Third, in response to a comment, NMFS clarified that this rule 
does not state the effect of removing an AFA catcher vessel from an 
inshore cooperative on fishing history of the removed vessel in the 
Pacific whiting fishery because that fishery occurs outside the EEZ off 
Alaska. NMFS explains these changes in the section of this preamble, 
``Changes from the Proposed Rule.''
    The Secretary approved this final rule after determining that it is 
consistent with the BSAI FMP, including Amendment 106; the Magnuson-
Stevens Act; and other applicable laws.
    In the preamble to the proposed rule, NMFS provided a detailed 
review of the proposed rule implementing Amendment 106 (79 FR 34696, 
June 18, 2014). NMFS described the key provisions of the original AFA; 
described the provisions in the original AFA that strictly limited the 
replacement of AFA vessels; described the AFA amendments in the Coast 
Guard Act; described the history of Council action; and described in 
detail the provisions of the proposed rule (79 FR at 34697-34707). NMFS 
does not repeat those descriptions here. The proposed rule is available 
on the NMFS Alaska Region Web site (see Addresses). In this preamble, 
NMFS summarizes the original AFA, the AFA amendments in the Coast Guard 
Act, and the key elements of the final rule. In this preamble, all 
references to regulations are to regulations in Title 50 of the CFR.

[[Page 54591]]

Original AFA

    The AFA was adopted in 1998. The original AFA is available on the 
NMFS Alaska Region Web site: https://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/sustainablefisheries/afa/afa1998.pdf. The original AFA had two 
subtitles. Subtitle I pertained to the issuance of Federal fishery 
endorsements generally. Subtitle II pertained to the management of the 
Bering Sea pollock fishery. The United States Coast Guard, in 
conjunction with the Maritime Administration (MARAD), implements 
Subtitle I. NMFS implements Subtitle II.
    Under Subtitle I, unless a vessel already had a Federal fishery 
endorsement as of September 25, 1997, a vessel could not receive a 
Federal fishery endorsement if it exceeded any of the statutory 
thresholds in the AFA: 165 feet in registered length, 750 gross 
registered tons, or engines capable of producing more than 3,000 shaft 
horsepower. All AFA vessels had Federal fishery endorsements as of 
September 25, 1997. Therefore, these statutory limits did not deprive 
any existing AFA vessel of a Federal fishery endorsement.
    Subtitle II of the original AFA made significant changes in the 
management of the Bering Sea pollock fishery in five areas. The 
original AFA established sector allocations in the BSAI pollock 
fishery; determined eligible vessels and processors; allowed the 
formation of cooperatives; set limits on the participation of AFA 
vessels in other fisheries; and imposed special catch weighing and 
monitoring requirements on AFA vessels. These features of the original 
AFA are described in more detail in the preamble to the proposed rule 
(79 FR 34696, 34697-34698, June 18, 2014).
    With respect to replacing AFA vessels, the original AFA explicitly 
prohibited the replacement of AFA vessels except under conditions 
specified in section 208(g) of the original AFA. The most stringent 
restriction in section 208(g) was that an owner of an AFA vessel could 
only replace an AFA vessel in the event of an ``actual total loss or a 
constructive total loss'' of the original AFA vessel. Thus, under the 
original AFA, a vessel owner could not replace an original AFA vessel 
until the AFA vessel sunk or was so damaged that it could not 
economically be repaired. An AFA vessel owner could not replace an 
original AFA vessel with another vessel simply because the vessel owner 
wanted a vessel that was safer, more fuel-efficient, or more 
operationally efficient in any way.
    Further, if an owner of an AFA vessel did lose an AFA vessel, 
section 208(g) of the original AFA limited the length, tonnage, and 
horsepower of the replacement vessel. If the original AFA vessel 
exceeded any of the statutory thresholds for receiving a Federal 
fishery endorsement (165 feet registered length, 750 gross registered 
tons, or 3,000 shaft horsepower engines), the replacement vessel could 
not exceed the length, tonnage, or horsepower of the original AFA 
vessel. If the original AFA vessel was less than any of the statutory 
thresholds, the replacement vessel could exceed the length, weight, or 
horsepower of the original AFA vessel by 10 percent, but only up to the 
statutory thresholds of length, weight, or horsepower in the AFA.
    As for rebuilding an original AFA vessel, the original AFA had no 
explicit provisions that allowed the owner of an AFA vessel to rebuild 
the vessel and maintain the vessel's AFA permit and the vessel's 
Federal fishery endorsement. As for removing an AFA vessel, the 
original AFA did not provide a mechanism for a vessel owner to remove 
an AFA catcher vessel from an inshore cooperative even if the catcher 
vessel was doing no or little actual fishing for the cooperative.
    Thus, under the original AFA, if an owner of an AFA vessel wanted 
to replace, rebuild, or remove an AFA vessel, the owner was under 
severe restrictions for replacing, faced uncertainty with regard to 
rebuilding, and simply could not remove a vessel. These provisions of 
the original AFA limited the ability of the owners of AFA vessels to 
deal with an aging fleet. Of the 92 AFA catcher vessels active in the 
inshore and mothership sectors in 2011, all were built before 1992. 
Sixty were built before 1980 (Analysis, Table 1-7). Of the 21 catcher/
processors with AFA permits, all were built before 1990. Fifteen were 
built before 1980 (Analysis, Table 1-26).

AFA as Amended by the Coast Guard Act

    The AFA amendments in the Coast Guard Act amended the provisions of 
the original AFA that pertain to the issuance of Federal fishery 
endorsements. The AFA amendments allow AFA rebuilt and replacement 
vessels to receive a Federal fishery endorsement, even if the vessel 
did not have a Federal fishery endorsement as of September 25, 1997 (46 
U.S.C. 12113(d)(2)(C)). Thus, an AFA rebuilt and AFA replacement vessel 
may now receive a Federal fishery endorsement even if the vessel 
exceeds the statutory thresholds for length, weight, and horsepower: 
165 feet registered length, 750 gross registered tons, or 3,000 shaft 
horsepower. MARAD has proposed a rule to implement this provision in 
the AFA amendments (79 FR 33160, June 10, 2014).
    The AFA amendments in the Coast Guard Act amended provisions of the 
original AFA that pertain to the management of the Bering Sea pollock 
fishery. The AFA amendments in the Coast Guard Act allow the 
rebuilding, replacement, and removal of AFA vessels to improve the 
safety and efficiency of the AFA fleet. Amendment 106 to the BSAI FMP 
adopts the provisions of the AFA amendments in the Coast Guard Act that 
pertain to the management of the Bering Sea pollock fishery. This final 
rule adopts the regulatory changes necessary to implement Amendment 
106.

Key Elements of This Rule

    With respect to rebuilding and replacement, the final rule allows 
the owner of an AFA vessel to rebuild or replace an AFA vessel as long 
as the AFA rebuilt vessel or the AFA replacement vessel has a Federal 
fishery endorsement. Under the AFA Amendments to the Coast Guard Act, 
an AFA rebuilt or replacement vessel may receive a Federal fishery 
endorsement irrespective of the vessel's length, weight, or horsepower. 
Therefore, under the final rule, the owner of an AFA vessel may rebuild 
or replace an AFA vessel and receive an AFA permit on the rebuilt or 
replacement vessel without any limit on the length, weight, or 
horsepower of the AFA rebuilt or replacement vessel.
    An AFA rebuilt vessel will have the same privileges and will be 
subject to the same restrictions as the vessel before rebuilding except 
(1) the AFA rebuilt vessel will not be subject to the maximum length 
overall (MLOA) restriction on a License Limitation Program (LLP) 
license with a Bering Sea or Aleutian Islands area endorsement when the 
AFA rebuilt vessel is operating in the BSAI, even if the vessel before 
rebuilding was subject to the MLOA restriction; and (2) an AFA rebuilt 
catcher vessel that is 125 feet length overall (LOA) or greater will be 
subject to the season restrictions in Sec.  679.23 even if the vessel 
before rebuilding was less than 125 feet LOA and was not subject to 
those restrictions. These provisions are added by the final rule at 
Sec.  679.4(l)(7)(i).
    An AFA replacement vessel will have the same privileges and will be 
subject to the same restrictions as the vessel it is replacing except 
(1) the AFA replacement vessel will not be subject to

[[Page 54592]]

the MLOA restriction on an LLP license with a Bering Sea or Aleutian 
Islands area endorsement when the AFA replacement vessel is operating 
in the BSAI, even if the replaced vessel was subject to the MLOA 
restriction; (2) an AFA replacement catcher vessel that is 125 feet LOA 
or greater will be subject to the season restrictions in Sec.  679.23 
even if the AFA replaced vessel was less than 125 feet LOA and was not 
subject to those restrictions; and (3) an AFA catcher vessel that is 
exempt from sideboard restrictions will maintain its sideboard 
exemption even if the vessel also becomes a replacement vessel for a 
vessel that did not have a sideboard exemption. These provisions are 
added by the final rule at Sec.  679.4(l)(7)(ii).
    The final rule at Sec.  679.4(l)(1)(ii)(B) addresses the situation 
of an owner of an AFA vessel that loses an AFA vessel. The final rule 
provides that the owner of an AFA vessel has a reasonable, but not 
unlimited, time to replace or remove a lost AFA vessel and specifies 
that, during that time, the AFA permit on the lost vessel shall remain 
valid. The final rule allows the owner of an AFA vessel to maintain the 
AFA permit on the lost vessel for up to five years from December 31 of 
the year in which the vessel was lost.
    The final rule does not lessen the significant restrictions in the 
AFA and in current regulations that apply to AFA vessels when those 
vessels participate in the Gulf of Alaska (GOA). Critically, this rule 
does not affect the requirement that an AFA vessel--whether an original 
AFA vessel, an AFA rebuilt vessel, or an AFA replacement vessel--may 
only operate in the GOA if the AFA vessel is the named vessel on an LLP 
license, the AFA vessel is operating in an area for which the LLP 
license has an area endorsement, and the AFA vessel does not exceed the 
MLOA restriction on that license.
    With respect to removal, this final rule at Sec.  679.4(l)(7)(iii) 
allows the owner of an AFA catcher vessel in an inshore cooperative to 
remove that vessel from the cooperative and assign the Bering Sea 
pollock catch history of the removed vessel to another vessel or 
vessels in the cooperative. The vessels that receive the catch history 
must remain in the cooperative for at least one year from the date on 
which NMFS approves the removal of the vessel and assigns catch history 
to the receiving vessels.
    Under the final rule at Sec.  679.4(l)(7)(iv), the privilege of 
replacing and removing an AFA vessel comes with a significant 
restriction. A replaced or removed AFA vessel cannot receive a permit 
to operate in any fishery in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) off 
Alaska unless the replaced or removed AFA vessel reenters the pollock 
fishery as a replacement AFA vessel. The restriction in the AFA 
amendments in the Coast Guard Act is actually more far-reaching, namely 
a replaced or removed AFA vessel cannot receive a Federal fishery 
endorsement at all unless the replaced or removed AFA vessel reenters 
the pollock fishery as a replacement AFA vessel (section 208(g)(5), 
section 210(b)(7)(B)). As noted, the United States Coast Guard, in 
conjunction with MARAD, will implement the restrictions in the AFA 
amendments on issuing Federal fishery endorsements.

Changes From the Proposed Rule

    NMFS made three changes in the regulatory text of the final rule 
from the regulatory text of the proposed rule (79 FR 34696, June 18, 
2014). NMFS made the first change as a result of internal review and 
made the second and third changes in response to public comments.
    First, NMFS fixed an error. The regulatory text of the proposed 
rule in Sec.  679.4(l)(7)(iii), ``Removal of AFA catcher vessel from 
the directed pollock fishery,'' stated in Sec.  679.4(l)(7)(iii)(A): 
``The owner of a catcher vessel that is designated on an AFA catcher 
vessel permit with an inshore endorsement may remove the catcher vessel 
from the directed pollock fishery, subject to the requirements in 
paragraph (B), (C), (D), and (E) of this paragraph (l)(7)(iii).'' The 
reference to paragraph (E) was an error because there was no paragraph 
(E). The final rule removes the reference to paragraph (E) in Sec.  
679.4(l)(7)(iii)(A).
    Second, NMFS changed the period during which the owner of an AFA 
lost vessel may replace or remove the lost vessel while maintaining 
without interruption the AFA permit and fishing privileges of the lost 
vessel. The proposed rule at Sec.  679.4(l)(1)(ii)(B)(3) would have 
established a 3-year period from December 31 of the year in which the 
vessel was lost. In the proposed rule, after the 3-year period, NMFS 
would suspend the AFA permit on the lost vessel if the owner had not 
replaced or removed the lost vessel but, after the 3-year period, would 
still process an application by the owner of the lost AFA vessel to 
replace or remove the lost vessel. The final rule keeps the process the 
same but changed Sec.  679.4(l)(1)(ii)(B)(3) from a 3-year period to a 
5-year period. NMFS made this change in response to the same comment 
from two persons, which is described in Comment 3.
    Third, NMFS clarified that the rule does not purport to state the 
effect of removal of AFA catcher vessels on any catch history that the 
removed vessel may have earned outside of the EEZ off Alaska. To do 
this, NMFS added the phrase ``in the Exclusive Economic Zone off 
Alaska'' after ``all claims relating to the catch history of the 
removed catcher vessel'' in Sec.  679.4(l)(7)(iii)(C) so that the 
paragraph now reads: ``Except for the assignment of the pollock catch 
history of the removed catcher vessel in paragraph (l)(7)(iii)(B) of 
this section, all claims relating to the catch history of the removed 
catcher vessel in the Exclusive Economic Zone off Alaska, including any 
claims to an exemption from AFA sideboard limitations, will be 
permanently extinguished upon NMFS' approval of the application to 
remove the catcher vessel and the AFA permit that was held by the owner 
of the removed catcher vessel will be revoked.'' NMFS made this change 
in response to a public comment described in Comment 5 that raised the 
issue with regard to the fishing history of a removed vessel in the 
Pacific whiting fishery, which occurs outside the EEZ off Alaska.

Comments on the FMP Text, the Proposed Rule, and the RIR for This 
Action

    NMFS received six letters with comments on Amendment 106, the 
proposed rule, or the Regulatory Review (RIR) for this action. Two 
letters were from the same commenter. These comments addressed 10 
topics. The comments were from individual owners of AFA vessels, an 
industry group representing owners of AFA vessels, an owner of 
Amendment 80 vessels, and an industry group representing owners of 
Amendment 80 vessels.
    Comment 1: NMFS received several comments of support for various 
aspects of the proposed rule. Three commenters supported allowing the 
owners of AFA vessels to rebuild or replace vessels to improve vessel 
safety or efficiency. Two commenters appreciated that the rule 
addressed the status of AFA permits after an AFA vessel is lost. Two 
commenters supported the prohibition on AFA replaced vessels 
participating in other fisheries. One commenter appreciated that the 
owner of an AFA vessel could remove the AFA vessel from fishing.
    Response: NMFS notes this support.
    Comment 2: The proposed definition of an AFA vessel is as follows: 
``An AFA vessel means a vessel that is designated on an AFA catcher 
vessel permit, an AFA catcher/processor permit, or an

[[Page 54593]]

AFA mothership permit, and is thereby authorized to participate in the 
Bering Sea directed pollock fishery.'' NMFS actually issues two types 
of AFA catcher/processor permits: A listed AFA catcher/processor permit 
and an unlisted AFA catcher/processor permit. The definition should be 
changed to specifically reflect the two types of AFA catcher/processor 
permits.
    Response: NMFS acknowledges that under Sec.  679.4(l)(2), it issues 
two types of AFA catcher/processor permits: (1) A listed AFA catcher/
processor permit for AFA catcher/processors that were listed by name in 
the original AFA at section 208(e)(1) to (20), and (2) an unlisted AFA 
catcher/processor permit for AFA catcher/processors that were not 
listed by name but met the criteria in section 208(e)(21) of the 
original AFA. Only one catcher/processor, the Ocean Peace, received an 
unlisted AFA catcher/processor permit.
    NMFS recognizes that the AFA and implementing regulations impose 
some restrictions on listed AFA catcher/processors that do not apply to 
the unlisted AFA catcher/processor. For example, section 211 of the 
original AFA imposed restrictions on listed AFA catcher/processors from 
harvesting and processing in fisheries besides Bering Sea pollock that 
did not apply to an unlisted AFA catcher/processor. The commenter 
pointed out that the proposed rule loosely referred to the ``Limits on 
AFA vessels in other fisheries'' in section 211 (79 FR 34696, 34698) 
whereas the explicit limits in section 211 apply to listed AFA catcher/
processors, not unlisted AFA catcher/processors.
    NMFS, however, does not see any need to change the definition of an 
AFA vessel in the final rule for two reasons. First, the definition in 
the proposed rule is accurate. An AFA catcher/processor is designated 
on an AFA catcher/processor permit. It is simply that there are two 
types of AFA catcher/processor permits: A listed AFA catcher/processor 
permit or an unlisted AFA catcher/processor permit.
    Second, the definition in the proposed rule is not misleading 
because the proposed rule is clear that a replacement vessel is subject 
to the same requirements that applied to the replaced vessel. A 
replacement vessel for a vessel that was designated on a listed AFA 
catcher/processor permit will receive a listed AFA catcher/processor 
permit. A replacement vessel for a vessel that was designated on an 
unlisted AFA catcher/processor permit will receive an unlisted 
AFAcatcher/processor permit. The proposed rule stated at Sec.  
679.4(l)(7)(ii)(B) that the owner of a replacement vessel ``will be 
subject to the same requirements that applied to the replaced vessel 
and will be eligible to use the AFA replacement vessel in the same 
manner as the replaced vessel,'' subject to three specific exceptions 
not relevant to this comment.
    The proposed rule carefully changed the prohibitions in Sec.  
679.7(k) so that all the prohibitions that applied to ``listed AFA 
catcher/processors,'' which might be read to apply only to the AFA 
catcher/processors listed as eligible in the original AFA, now apply to 
listed AFA catcher/processors and ``catcher/processors designated on 
listed AFA catcher/processor permits.'' Similarly, the proposed rule 
carefully changed the prohibitions in Sec.  679.7(k) so that all the 
prohibitions that applied to ``unlisted AFA catcher/processors'' now 
apply to unlisted AFA catcher/processors and ``catcher/processors 
designated on unlisted AFA catcher/processor permits.'' With regard to 
observer requirements in Sec.  679.51, the proposed rule made the same 
change in Sec.  679.51(a)(2)(vi)(B(1) and (3) so that all the 
requirements that applied to ``listed AFA catcher/processors'' now also 
apply to ``catcher/processors designated on listed AFA catcher/
processor permits,'' and all requirements that applied to ``unlisted 
AFA catcher/processors'' now also apply to ``catcher/processors 
designated on unlisted AFA catcher/processor permits.''
    Comment 3: Two commenters stated that the owner of an AFA vessel 
should be allowed 5 years from December 31 of the year in which the 
vessel was lost to maintain, without interruption, the AFA permit and 
fishing privileges of the lost vessel. The proposed rule contained a 3-
year period. The commenters gave five reasons in favor of a 5-year 
period rather than a 3-year period. First, the owner will have to deal 
with a crisis in the company's operations when a vessel was lost. This 
includes a Coast Guard investigation, insurance claims and settlements, 
and possibly other claims associated with the loss. Second, the owner 
has to consult and contract with a vessel design/architect firm, 
equipment vendors, and a shipyard to plan and build a new vessel. One 
commenter noted that the owner is under an obligation to rebuild the 
vessel in American shipyards. Third, the owner will need to obtain 
financing. Fourth, after a contract is signed, the shipyard has to 
schedule time and space to build the vessel, purchase the necessary 
material and equipment, and then build the vessel. Fifth, if the owner 
was lost at sea, the settlement of the owner's estate can take over a 
year.
    Response: NMFS agrees with this comment. NMFS concludes that the 
reasons advanced by the commenters justify a 5-year period. Therefore, 
NMFS changed the final rule in Sec.  679.4(l)(1)(ii)(B)(3) to allow the 
owner of an AFA vessel up to 5 years from December 31 of the year in 
which the vessel was lost to maintain, without interruption, the AFA 
permit and fishing privileges of the lost vessel. NMFS notes that, in 
the proposed rule, it specifically invited comment on whether the 3-
year period was adequate to allow the owner of a lost vessel to replace 
the vessel (79 FR 34696 and 34705, June 18, 2014).
    Comment 4: If the owner of a lost AFA catcher vessel does not apply 
to replace the vessel within the 5-year period, NMFS will suspend the 
AFA permit and fishing privileges of the lost vessel. After the 5-year 
period, the owner of the lost vessel may still apply to replace the 
lost vessel. If the owner of a lost catcher vessel in an inshore 
cooperative applies to replace a lost catcher vessel after the 5-year 
period, the owner of the AFA vessel should be required to transfer the 
permit to a vessel in the cooperative of which the lost vessel was a 
member when the vessel was lost. Such a provision would help keep the 
system of inshore cooperatives intact.
    Response: NMFS does not make any change in the proposed rule in 
response to this comment for three reasons. First, the AFA amendments 
did not limit the ability of the owner of an AFA vessel to select an 
AFA replacement vessel. The AFA amendments in section 208(g)(1) allow 
the owner of an AFA vessel to rebuild or replace an AFA vessel ``in 
order to improve vessel safety or operational efficiency'' and provide 
that the rebuilt or replacement vessel ``shall be eligible in the same 
manner and subject to the same restrictions and limitations'' as the 
vessel being rebuilt or replaced. The AFA amendments did not require 
the owner of any AFA vessel to choose a replacement from a particular 
category of vessels. Accordingly, NMFS did not propose that requirement 
in the proposed rule and does not think it is appropriate to include 
that requirement in the final rule.
    Second, the AFA amendments in section 210(b)(7)(A)(ii) did 
expressly require that if the owner of an AFA vessel wanted to remove a 
vessel from an inshore cooperative, the owner had to assign the catch 
history of the removed vessel to another vessel or vessels in the 
cooperative and those vessels had to remain in that cooperative for at 
least one year after the

[[Page 54594]]

removed vessel left the cooperative. Accordingly, the proposed and 
final rule contain that restriction at Sec.  679.4(l)(7)(iii)(D). But 
the AFA amendments included no such express restriction on the ability 
of the owner of an AFA vessel to select a replacement vessel.
    Third, the regulations restrict which inshore cooperative a 
replacement vessel may join and thus already provide an incentive for 
stability in cooperative membership. For an inshore cooperative to 
include the catch history attached to a replacement catcher vessel in 
the cooperative application, the vessel must meet the requirements in 
Sec.  679.4(l)(6) to be a qualified catcher vessel for that 
cooperative. Under Sec.  679.4(l)(6), a vessel is only qualified to be 
a member of a cooperative if the vessel meets the landing and permit 
requirements for cooperative membership in the vessel's last year of 
participation or is an AFA replacement vessel for a catcher vessel that 
met the permit and landing requirements. Thus, if the lost vessel could 
only have been a member of a particular inshore cooperative, the 
replacement vessel for the lost vessel initially can only be a member 
of that same cooperative, even if NMFS approves the replacement after 
the 5-year period. The replacement vessel stands in the shoes of the 
replaced vessel for cooperative membership and for other fishing 
privileges, even if the replaced vessel is a vessel that was lost more 
than five years before the vessel owner seeks to make the replacement.
    Comment 5: The AFA amendments wisely allow the owners of AFA 
catcher vessels to remove vessels in the Fishery Exit Provisions. The 
proposed rule states that all claims relating to the catch history of a 
removed vessel shall be extinguished. The proposed rule properly 
extinguishes the exemption from AFA sideboards of a removed vessel. But 
the proposed rule is too broad if NMFS extinguishes the following 
claims of a removed vessel: A claim to Rockfish Quota Share; a claim to 
future catch shares in a GOA catch share program; a claim to catch 
shares in a Pacific whiting fishery limited access program.
    Response: With respect to any aspect of the history of an AFA 
vessel in the Pacific whiting fishery, the comment alerted NMFS to the 
fact that the proposed rule at Sec.  679.4(l)(7)(iii)(C) might be read 
to extinguish the history of an AFA vessel in that fishery. NMFS did 
not intend that. This rule will become part of 50 CFR part 679. Part 
679 applies, and only can apply, to fisheries of the EEZ off Alaska. 
The Pacific whiting fishery does not occur in the EEZ off Alaska. This 
fishery occurs in the area of the EEZ within the jurisdiction of the 
Pacific Council as described in section 302 of the Magnuson-Stevens 
Act, namely ``fisheries of the Pacific Ocean seaward of [California, 
Oregon, Washington, and Idaho]. NMFS therefore changed Sec.  
679.4(l)(7)(iii)(C) to clarify that it applies to fishing history 
earned in the EEZ off Alaska.
    NMFS notes that the provision requiring extinguishment of claims 
based on the catch history of a removed vessel applies to permits that 
would enable the owner of the vessel to receive permits in any fishery 
anywhere within the EEZ, not only in the EEZ off Alaska. The AFA 
amendments amended section 210(b) so that it now has section 
210(b)(7)(B), which states, in part, ``[A]ny claim (including relating 
to catch history) associated with such vessel [a removed vessel] that 
could qualify any owner of such vessel for any permit to participate in 
any fishery within the exclusive economic zone of the United States 
shall be extinguished.'' It is simply that a rule in 50 CFR part 679 
cannot extinguish claims in fisheries outside of the EEZ off Alaska.
    With respect to claims relating to fishing history in the EEZ off 
Alaska, it is important to remember that the AFA amendments only 
require NMFS to extinguish all claims based on the catch history of a 
vessel in an inshore cooperative when the vessel is removed from the 
cooperative. If the owner of an AFA vessel replaces, rather than 
removes, an AFA catcher vessel with an inshore endorsement, NMFS will 
issue the replacement vessel all the fishing permits and licenses that 
were held by the replaced vessel so that the replacement vessel may 
operate in the same manner as the replaced vessel. Furthermore, the 
owner of an AFA vessel may select as a replacement vessel a vessel that 
already has an AFA permit.
    If the owner of an AFA vessel chooses to remove, rather than 
replace, a catcher vessel in an inshore cooperative, NMFS must 
extinguish any claims to future permits in future catch share programs 
that are associated with the catch history of the removed vessel. NMFS 
bases this conclusion on the clear language of section 210(b)(7)(B) of 
the amended AFA: ``Except as provided in subparagraph (C), a vessel 
that is removed pursuant to this paragraph shall be permanently 
ineligible for a fishery endorsement, and any claim (including relating 
to catch history) associated with such vessel that could qualify any 
owner of such vessel for any permit to participate in any fishery 
within the exclusive economic zone of the United States shall be 
extinguished, unless such removed vessel is thereafter designated to 
replace a vessel to be removed pursuant to this paragraph.'' The 
exception in subparagraph (C) is for four named vessels. This comment 
does not refer to any of the four named vessels.
    The extinguishment language in section 210(b)(7)(B) is strikingly 
broad: ``any claim'' associated with such vessel that could qualify 
``any owner'' of such vessel for ``any period'' to participate in ``any 
fishery'' within the EEZ ``shall be extinguished.'' NMFS does not 
believe that the statute gives it authority to select which catch 
history of a removed vessel it should extinguish and which catch 
history it should not extinguish. If NMFS had such authority, the 
statute would address this issue and provide criteria, or at least 
guidance, as to which catch history of a removed vessel NMFS should 
extinguish and which catch history it should not.
    NMFS does not, however, believe that the statute requires it to 
revoke any permits that it has already issued based on the catch 
history of a removed vessel. The AFA amendments direct NMFS to 
extinguish ``any claim (including relating to catch history) associated 
with such vessel that could qualify'' the owner of an AFA removed 
vessel for a permit. NMFS concludes that this refers to permits that 
NMFS might issue in the future based on a claim made in the future. If 
NMFS has already issued a permit, the owner of the vessel does not 
merely have a ``claim'' to a permit. The owner has a permit.
    NMFS concludes that this reasoning applies with equal force to 
catch history of a removed vessel that NMFS has already assigned to an 
LLP license under the Rockfish Program at Sec.  679.80. The holder of 
the LLP license may transfer that LLP license with any Rockfish QS 
assigned to that license within the restrictions at Sec.  679.81(f). 
Thus, NMFS does not view issued Rockfish QS as a ``claim'' to QS but as 
QS that it has issued; that it has assigned to a particular LLP 
license; that may be used by different vessels if those vessels are 
named on the LLP license; and that may be transferred to another person 
when the LLP license is transferred to another person. However, upon 
removal of a catcher vessel, NMFS will extinguish all claims to new 
fishing permits and new fishing privileges that could be based on the 
catch history of the removed vessel.
    NMFS notes that 16 AFA catcher vessels have an exemption from GOA

[[Page 54595]]

sideboards. The owners of these AFA catcher vessels will have to 
carefully consider replacing, rather than removing, their vessels. If 
the owner of an AFA catcher vessel replaces an AFA catcher vessel with 
an exemption from AFA sideboards in the GOA, NMFS will issue the 
replacement catcher vessel an AFA permit with an exemption from AFA 
sideboards in the GOA. If the owner of an AFA catcher vessel removes a 
vessel with an exemption from GOA sideboards, NMFS will extinguish the 
sideboard exemption.
    Comment 6: AFA replacement vessels will likely have more capacity 
than the vessels they replace. AFA rebuilt vessels will likely have 
more capacity than the vessel before rebuilding. This may mean that AFA 
replacement and rebuilt vessels will catch more fish. For example, AFA 
replacement and rebuilt vessels may catch more yellowfin sole in the 
BSAI. NMFS should be vigilant that AFA vessels do not adversely impact 
other fisheries.
    Response: AFA vessels--whether original, rebuilt, or replacement--
are strictly limited in their activities in fisheries other than the 
Bering Sea pollock fishery. The Analysis of this action at Sec.  1.9 
describes the restrictions on AFA vessels in current regulations in 
both the BSAI and the GOA. NMFS will continue to enforce those 
restrictions. NMFS does not believe that this rule will make it more 
difficult to manage the yellowfin sole fishery or other fisheries in 
which AFA vessels participate.
    With respect to yellowfin sole in the BSAI, the listed AFA catcher/
processors and the AFA catcher vessels are limited to the amount of 
yellowfin sole these vessels harvested in the 1995-1997 period, as a 
percentage of the total allowable catch (TAC) for each year, subject to 
one exception (Sec.  679.64(a)(1)(iii), Sec.  679.64(b)(3)(iii)). The 
exception was part of the Amendment 80 Program: NMFS removes AFA 
sideboard limits for yellowfin sole in the BSAI in years when the 
initial TAC level for that species assigned to the Amendment 80 sector 
and the BSAI trawl limited access sector is fairly high, namely 125,000 
metric tons or greater. Final Rule, 72 FR 52668, 52726 (Sept. 14, 
2007). By regulation, AFA vessels are not restricted to their 
historical catch of yellowfin sole in years when the aggregate initial 
TAC for yellowfin sole in the BSAI assigned to the Amendment 80 sector 
and the BSAI trawl limited access sector is 125,000 metric tons or 
greater (Sec.  679.64(a)(1)(v); Sec.  679.64(b)(6)).
    If the Council determines that stricter AFA sideboard limits on 
yellowfin sole or any other species are necessary, it would have to 
pursue that rulemaking. That would be a separate action.
    Comment 7: If the Council proposes a GOA trawl catch share program 
in the future, the program should eliminate the maximum length overall 
restriction on the LLP licenses assigned to the vessels that receive 
fishing privileges under the new program.
    Response: This is not a comment on the proposed rule. If the 
Council and NMFS develop a GOA trawl catch share program, the commenter 
should participate in the Council process and submit comments as part 
of the Secretarial rulemaking process.
    Comment 8: AFA catcher/processors should not be able to participate 
in Amendment 80 fisheries.
    Response: The Amendment 80 Program is a limited access program that 
authorizes vessels to harvest a specific number of units of certain 
groundfish species, but not pollock, in the BSAI. The permit 
regulations for Amendment 80 permits are primarily at 50 CFR 679.4(o).
    Only one AFA catcher/processor, the Ocean Peace, may participate in 
an Amendment 80 sector fishery. The Ocean Peace is the only AFA 
catcher/processor that also has an Amendment 80 permit. In the future, 
the only AFA vessel that could participate in an Amendment 80 sector 
fishery would be the Ocean Peace or a replacement vessel for the Ocean 
Peace.
    Comment 9: The IRFA summary in the proposed rule incorrectly states 
that all AFA catcher/processors are affiliated through membership in 
the Pollock Conservation Cooperative. This is inaccurate. The Ocean 
Peace is an AFA catcher/processor and is not a member of the Pollock 
Conservation Cooperative.
    Response: The commenter is correct. The statement in the IRFA 
summary was in error. The Ocean Peace is an AFA catcher/processor and 
is not a member of the Pollock Conservation Cooperative. NMFS corrected 
the statement in the FRFA, which is contained in this rule.
    Comment 10: The Ocean Peace is currently 219 feet. The Ocean Peace 
is named on an LLP license with area endorsements for the Bering Sea, 
the Aleutian Islands, and the Western Gulf. The vessel's LLP license 
has a current MLOA restriction of 219 feet. If the owner of the Ocean 
Peace rebuilds the Ocean Peace so that it is longer than 219 feet, or 
replaces the Ocean Peace with a vessel that is longer than 219 feet, 
does this rule affect the current regulation that NMFS assigns an MLOA 
of 295 feet to an LLP license on which an Amendment 80 replacement 
vessel is the named vessel? The Ocean Peace is the only vessel that is 
named on both an AFA permit and an Amendment 80 Quota Share permit.
    Response: If the owner of the Ocean Peace rebuilds the Ocean Peace 
or acquires a replacement vessel for the Ocean Peace, NMFS will amend 
the LLP groundfish license that names the Ocean Peace and will assign 
an MLOA on that LLP license of 295 feet. The rebuilt Ocean Peace or the 
replacement vessel for the Ocean Peace would then be subject to an MLOA 
of 295 feet when it participates in any fishery in the GOA. NMFS would 
take these actions based on the current regulations for replacing an 
Amendment 80 vessel. See 50 CFR 679.4(o)(4); 50 CFR 679.4(k)(3)(i)(C); 
and 50 CFR 679.2 (definition of Maximum LOA, paragraph (2)(iv)).
    The above regulations implemented Amendment 97 to the BSAI FMP. The 
subject of Amendment 97 was the replacement of Amendment 80 vessels 
(Final Rule, 77 FR 59852 (October 1, 2012)). Under Amendment 97, an 
Amendment 80 rebuilt vessel is treated as an Amendment 80 replacement 
vessel. All Amendment 80 replacement vessels must be classed and load 
lined or, if the vessel cannot be classed and load lined, the vessel 
must be enrolled in the Alternative Compliance and Safety Agreement 
Program of the U.S. Coast Guard. 77 FR at 59867 (NMFS Response to 
Comment 11).
    The Ocean Peace also has an AFA permit to participate in the 
directed pollock fishery as a catcher/processor. Therefore, the Ocean 
Peace is subject to the AFA, as amended by the Coast Guard Act, 
Amendment 106, and this final rule. Under this rule, the owner of the 
Ocean Peace may rebuild or replace the Ocean Peace to improve safety or 
efficiency without limitation on the length of the rebuilt or replaced 
vessel, notwithstanding the MLOA restriction on the LLP license on 
which the Ocean Peace is named. Accordingly, under this rule at Sec.  
679.2 and Sec.  679.4(k)(3)(i)(E), if the Ocean Peace is rebuilt or 
replaced, the rebuilt Ocean Peace or its replacement vessel will be 
exempt from the MLOA on the LLP license that names the Ocean Peace or 
its replacement vessel when the Ocean Peace or its replacement vessel 
is participating in the BSAI pursuant to that LLP license.
    NMFS notes two ways that this rule could affect the ability of the 
Ocean Peace to participate in the GOA. First, under provisions added at 
Sec.  679.4(l)(7)(iv), if the Ocean Peace becomes a replaced or removed 
AFA

[[Page 54596]]

vessel, it would be permanently ineligible to participate in any 
fishery in the EEZ off Alaska unless it reenters the fishery as an AFA 
replacement vessel. Second, under provisions added at Sec.  
679.4(l)(7)(ii)(B), if the Ocean Peace becomes a replacement vessel for 
any AFA catcher/processor or AFA catcher vessel, the Ocean Peace would 
operate subject to the restrictions and limitations of the vessel it 
replaced.

Classification

    The Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS, determined that this final 
rule is consistent with the BSAI FMP, including Amendment 106, the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act, the AFA, and other applicable laws.

Small Entity Compliance Guide

    Section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness 
Act of 1996 states that, for each rule or group of related rules for 
which an agency is required to prepare a final regulatory flexibility 
analysis, the agency shall publish one or more guides to assist small 
entities in complying with the rule, and shall designate such 
publications as ``small entity compliance guides.'' The agency shall 
explain the actions a small entity is required to take to comply with a 
rule or group of rules. The preamble to the proposed rule and the 
preamble to this final rule serve as the small entity compliance guide. 
This rule does not require any additional compliance from small 
entities that is not described in the preamble to the proposed rule. 
Copies of this final rule are available from NMFS at the following Web 
site: http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov

Executive Order 12866

    The final rule has been determined to be not significant for 
purposes of Executive Order 12866.

Regulatory Impact Review

    The Council and NMFS conducted a Regulatory Impact Review (RIR) 
pursuant to Executive Order 12866. The RIR assessed the costs and 
benefits of Alternative 1, Alternative 2, and four options under 
Alternative 2. Alternative 1 was no change in the regulations in 50 CFR 
part 679. Alternative 2 was changing the regulations to conform to 
NMFS' interpretation of the AFA as amended by the Coast Guard Act. The 
four options under Alternative 2 would have imposed additional 
restrictions on AFA vessels when these vessels participate in the GOA, 
over and above restrictions in the AFA and current regulations. The 
Council and NMFS concluded that Alternative 2 is likely to result in 
net benefits to the nation. NMFS published the RIR in a combined 
document with the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA). This 
rule refers to the RIR/IRFA as the Analysis. A copy of the Analysis is 
available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES).

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA)

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) contains the requirements for 
the FRFA in section 604(a)(1) through (6) of the RFA. The FRFA must 
contain:
    1. A succinct statement of the need for, and objectives of, the 
rule;
    2. A summary of the significant issues raised by the public 
comments in response to the initial regulatory flexibility analysis, a 
summary of the assessment of the agency of such issues, and a statement 
of any changes made in the proposed rule as a result of such comments;
    3. The response of the agency to any comments on the proposed rule 
by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration;
    4. A description and an estimate of the number of small entities to 
which the rule will apply, or an explanation of why no such estimate is 
available;
    5. A description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping, and 
other compliance requirements of the rule, including an estimate of the 
classes of small entities which will be subject to the requirement and 
the type of professional skills necessary for preparation of the report 
or record; and
    6. A description of the steps the agency has taken to minimize the 
significant economic impact on small entities consistent with the 
stated objectives of applicable statutes, including a statement of the 
factual, policy, and legal reasons for selecting the alternative 
adopted in the final rule and why each one of the other significant 
alternatives to the rule considered by the agency which affect the 
impact on small entities was rejected.
    NMFS prepared an IRFA that addressed the requirements described in 
section 603(b)(1) through (5) of the RFA. This FRFA incorporates the 
IRFA and the summary of the IRFA in the proposed rule (79 FR 34696, 
June 18, 2014). As noted, NMFS published the IRFA in a combined 
document with the RIR. The RIR/IRFA or Analysis is available on the 
NMFS Alaska Region Web site: http://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov.

A Succinct Statement of the Need for, and Objectives of, the Rule

    This rule is needed to conform current regulations to the AFA 
amendments in the Coast Guard Act. The rule is also needed to allow the 
owners of AFA vessels to rebuild and replace their vessels to improve 
safety and efficiency, even if an AFA vessel has not sunk or been 
damaged beyond repair. The rule is also needed to allow the owners of 
AFA catcher vessels in inshore cooperatives to remove those vessels 
from the cooperative, when the owner is willing to withdraw the catcher 
vessel from all activity that requires a Federal fishery endorsement 
except to possibly use the removed vessel as an AFA replacement vessel 
in the future. The need for, and objectives of, this rule are further 
explained in the preamble to the proposed rule in the sections, ``The 
Need for Action'' and ``Proposed Action.'' (79 FR 34696, June 18, 
2014).

Summary of Significant Issues Raised During Public Comment

    The proposed rule was published on June 18, 2014 (79 FR 34696). The 
45-day comment period on the proposed rule ended August 4, 2014. NMFS 
received one comment on the IRFA, namely that the IRFA summary in the 
proposed rule incorrectly stated that all AFA catcher/processors were 
members of the Pollock Conservation Cooperative. NMFS agreed this was 
incorrect because the Ocean Peace is an AFA catcher/processor and is 
not a member of the Pollock Conservation Cooperative. NMFS corrected 
this statement in the FRFA. NMFS describes this comment and its 
response in Comment 9. NMFS did not receive any other comment on the 
IRFA. NMFS did not receive any comments on the impacts of this action 
on small entities.

The Response to Comments From Small Business Administration

    NMFS did not receive any comments on the proposed rule from the 
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA).

Number and Description of Small Entities Regulated by the Final Rule

    NMFS concludes that this rule does not directly regulate any small 
entities. The SBA establishes size criteria for small entities in all 
major industry sectors in the United States, including fish harvesting 
and fish processing businesses. On June 12, 2014, the SBA issued a 
final rule, effective July 14, 2014, that adjusted the annual receipts 
standard for small businesses based on inflation (79 FR 33647). The SBA 
rule

[[Page 54597]]

increased the annual receipts standard for entities in Finfish Fishing 
from $19.0 million to $20.5 million. AFA vessels receive their revenues 
predominately from finfish fishing. Therefore, the IRFA and the FRFA 
apply the finfish standard.
    This action directly regulates the owners of vessels that are 
designated on AFA permits; these vessels are catcher vessels, catcher/
processor vessels, and motherships. In 2013, 105 catcher vessels, 21 
catcher/processors, and 3 motherships were designated on AFA permits 
(Analysis, Section 2.4). In assessing whether an entity is small, the 
RFA requires NMFS to consider affiliations between entities. All AFA 
catcher vessels are members of one of eight cooperatives delivering 
pollock to catcher/processors, to inshore processing plants, or to 
motherships (Analysis, Section 2.4).
    NMFS concludes that none of the AFA vessels or AFA cooperatives are 
small entities. With respect to the seven AFA catcher vessels that are 
authorized to deliver to catcher/processors, these seven catcher 
vessels have formed the High Seas Catchers' Cooperative (HSCC). The 
HSCC leases the pollock allocation of its members to the Pollock 
Conservation Cooperative, a cooperative that comprises the nineteen 
listed AFA catcher/processors (Analysis, Section 1.9.2). The members of 
the Pollock Conservative Cooperative had estimated 2012 gross revenues 
from pollock alone in excess of $500 million (Analysis, Section 2.4). 
Thus, applying the revised, inflation-adjusted, standard of $20.5 
million, all AFA entities in the catcher/processor sector--catcher 
vessels, catcher/processors, and the cooperatives of these vessels--are 
still large entities.
    With respect to AFA catcher vessels that deliver to inshore 
processing plants and to motherships, all of these AFA catcher vessels 
are members of one of seven cooperatives. The IRFA stated: ``The seven 
cooperatives delivering to processing plants or motherships had gross 
revenues from pollock alone in excess of $19 million, and/or were 
affiliated with processing operations that themselves met the large 
entity threshold of 500 employees for entities of that type, and/or 
were affiliated with processors who did'' (Analysis, Section 2.4). The 
gross revenues from pollock for each of these cooperatives also exceeds 
$20.5 million dollars, and the affiliation relationships considered in 
the IRFA continue to exist. Therefore, all AFA catcher vessels that 
deliver to inshore plants or motherships, and the cooperatives of those 
vessels, are large entities.
    With respect to AFA motherships, the IRFA states: ``Three 
motherships accept deliveries of pollock from catcher vessels. While 
these vessels are authorized to join the cooperative of catcher vessels 
making such deliveries, they have not recently chosen to do so. 
However, each of these motherships is believed to be a large entity, 
based on corporate affiliations with other large processing firms.'' 
(Analysis, Section 2.4). NMFS reaffirms this conclusion in this FRFA.
    Thus, NMFS concludes that all of the entities directly regulated by 
this action are ``large'' entities for the purpose of the RFA.

Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements

    Since this action does not directly regulate any small entities, 
this action does not impose recordkeeping or reporting requirements on 
any small entities. This action imposes one additional reporting 
requirement on the owner of an AFA rebuilt vessel. If the owner of an 
AFA vessel rebuilds an AFA vessel, the owner shall submit the 
documentation for the rebuilt vessel to NMFS within 30 days of the 
issuance of the documentation. Apart from this requirement, the owners 
of AFA rebuilt vessels would be subject to the same recordkeeping and 
reporting requirements after rebuilding as before rebuilding.
    Under this action, the owners of AFA replacement vessels are 
subject to the same recordkeeping and reporting requirements that 
applied to the replaced, or former, AFA vessel. Under this action, if a 
vessel is removed, the owners of the AFA vessels that are assigned the 
catch history of the removed vessel are subject to the same 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements after they are assigned the 
catch history of the removed vessel as before they were assigned the 
catch history of the removed vessel.
    To implement this rule, NMFS has created an application form for 
the owner of an AFA vessel who wishes to take any of the actions 
allowed by this rule. The application form allows the owner of an AFA 
vessel to notify NMFS of rebuilding, to request to replace an AFA 
vessel, or to request removal of an AFA catcher vessel from an inshore 
cooperative.

Description of Significant Alternatives to the Final Action That 
Minimize Adverse Impacts on Small Entities

    Section 604 of the RFA requires that NMFS describe any significant 
alternatives to the proposed action that would accomplish the stated 
objectives of applicable statutes and would minimize any significant 
adverse economic impacts on directly regulated small entities. Since 
this action does not directly regulate any small entities, this action 
has no adverse impacts on small entities and, therefore, there are no 
alternatives to this action that would minimize adverse impacts on 
small entities.

Collection-of-Information Requirements

    This rule contains a collection-of-information requirement subject 
to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) and which has been approved by the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under OMB Control Number 0648-
0393. Public reporting burden for the American Fisheries Act (AFA) 
Permit: Rebuilt, Replacement, or Removed Vessel Application is 
estimated to average 2 hours per response, including the time for 
reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and 
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the 
collection-of-information. Send comments regarding this burden 
estimate, or any other aspect of this data collection, including 
suggestions for reducing the burden, to NMFS (see ADDRESSEES) and by 
email to [email protected], or fax to (202) 395-5806.
    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is 
required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty 
for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the 
requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays 
a currently valid OMB control number. All currently approved NOAA 
collections of information may be viewed at: http://www.cio.noaa.gov/services_programs/prasubs.html.

List of Subjects

15 CFR Part 902

    Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

50 CFR Part 679

    Alaska, Fisheries, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: September 8, 2014.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
    For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS amends 15 CFR part 
902 and 50 CFR part 679 as follows:

[[Page 54598]]

Title 15--Commerce and Foreign Trade

PART 902--NOAA INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE 
PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT: OMB CONTROL NUMBERS

0
1. The authority citation for part 902 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.


0
2. In Sec.  902.1, in the table in paragraph (b), under the entry ``50 
CFR'':
0
a. Remove entries for ``679.4(b), (f), (h), and (i)''; ``679.4(d) and 
(e)''; ``679.4(g)''; ``679.4(k)''; ``679.4(l)(1) through (l)(7)''; 
``679.4(m)(2)''; ``679.4(m)(4)''; ``679.4(n)''; ``679.4(o)''; 
``679.7(a)(1)''; ``679.7(a)(3)''; ``679.7(a)(7)(vii) through (ix), 
679.7(n)(1)(iv)''; ``679.7(a)(12), 679.7(k)(8)(i)''; ``679.7(a)(15)''; 
``679.7(a)(18), 679.7(n)(3)''; ``679.7(a)(20)''; ``679.7(a)(21) and 
(22)''; ``679.7(b)(2)''; ``679.7(d)''; ``679.7(f)''; 
``679.7(f)(8)(ii)''; ``679.7(g)''; ``679.7(i)''; ``679.7(k)''; 
``679.7(l)''; ``679.7(n)''; ``679.7(n)(4)(ii)''; and ``679.7(o)''.
0
b. Add entries in alphanumeric order for ``679.4'' and ``679.7''.
    The additions read as follows:


Sec.  902.1  OMB control numbers assigned pursuant to the Paperwork 
Reduction Act.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
     CFR part or section where the
 information collection requirement is   Current OMB control number (all
                located                     numbers begin with 0648-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                              * * * * * * *
50 CFR:
 
                              * * * * * * *
679.4..................................  -0206, -0272, -0334, -0393, -
                                          0513, -0545, -0565, and -0665.
 
                              * * * * * * *
679.7..................................  -0206, -0269, -0272, -0316, -
                                          0318, -0330, -0334, -0393, -
                                          0445, -0513, -0514, -0545, -
                                          0565.
 
                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title 50--Wildlife and Fisheries

PART 679--FISHERIES OF THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE OFF ALASKA

0
3. The authority citation for part 679 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority:  16 U.S.C. 773 et seq.; 1801 et seq.; 3631 et seq.; 
Pub. L. 108-447; Pub. L. 111-281.


0
4. In Sec.  679.2,
0
a. Revise the definition of ``AFA mothership'';
0
b. Add definitions for ``AFA rebuilt vessel,'' ``AFA replacement 
vessel,'' and ``AFA vessel'' in alphabetical order; and
0
c. Add paragraph (2)(vi) to the definition of ``Maximum LOA (MLOA)''.
    The revision and additions read as follows:


Sec.  679.2  Definitions.

* * * * *
    AFA mothership means a mothership permitted to process BS pollock 
under Sec.  679.4(l)(4).
* * * * *
    AFA rebuilt vessel means an AFA vessel that was rebuilt after 
October 15, 2010.
    AFA replacement vessel means a vessel that NMFS designated on an 
AFA permit pursuant to Sec.  679.4(l)(7) after October 15, 2010.
    AFA vessel means a vessel that is designated on an AFA catcher 
vessel permit, an AFA catcher/processor permit, or an AFA mothership 
permit, and is thereby authorized to participate in the Bering Sea 
directed pollock fishery.
* * * * *
    Maximum LOA (MLOA) means:
    (2) * * *
    (vi) An AFA vessel is exempt from the MLOA on an LLP license with a 
Bering Sea area endorsement or an Aleutian Islands area endorsement 
when the vessel is used in the BSAI to harvest or process license 
limitation groundfish and the LLP license specifies an exemption from 
the MLOA restriction for the AFA vessel.
* * * * *

0
5. In Sec.  679.4,
0
a. Remove paragraphs (a)(1)(iii)(F), (l)(4) introductory text, and 
(l)(8)(iv);
0
b. Redesignate paragraphs (l)(2)(iii) as (l)(2)(iv) and (l)(8)(v) as 
(l)(8)(iv) ;
0
c. Revise paragraphs (k)(1)(i), (k)(3)(i)(A), (l)(1)(ii)(B), 
(l)(3)(i)(A)(2), (l)(3)(i)(B)(2), (l)(3)(i)(C)(2)(ii), (l)(4)(i), 
(l)(6)(ii)(C)(3), (l)(6)(ii)(D) introductory text, (l)(7), (l)(8)(i), 
(l)(8)(ii), (l)(8)(iii), and (o)(4)(i)(D); and
0
d. Add paragraphs (k)(3)(i)(E), (l)(2)(iii), (l)(3)(i)(A)(3), 
(l)(3)(i)(B)(3), (l)(3)(i)(C)(3), (l)(3)(ii)(E)(3), (1)(6)(ii)(D)(3), 
and (l)(6)(ii)(D)(4).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  679.4  Permits.

* * * * *
    (k) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) In addition to the permit and licensing requirements of this 
part, and except as provided in paragraph (k)(2) of this section, each 
vessel within the GOA or the BSAI must have an LLP groundfish license 
on board at all times it is engaged in fishing activities defined in 
Sec.  679.2 as directed fishing for license limitation groundfish. This 
groundfish license, issued by NMFS to a qualified person, authorizes a 
license holder to deploy a vessel to conduct directed fishing for 
license limitation groundfish only in accordance with the specific area 
and species endorsements, the vessel and gear designations, the MLOA 
specified on the license, and any exemption from the MLOA specified on 
the license.
* * * * *
    (3) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (A) General. A license may be used only on a vessel designated on 
the license, a vessel that complies with the vessel designation and 
gear designation specified on the license, and a vessel that has an LOA 
less than or equal to the MLOA specified on the license, unless the 
license specifies that the vessel is exempt from the MLOA on the 
license.
* * * * *
    (E) Exemption from MLOA on an LLP license with a Bering Sea area 
endorsement or an Aleutian Islands area endorsement for AFA rebuilt or 
AFA replacement vessels. An AFA rebuilt vessel or an AFA replacement 
vessel may exceed the MLOA on an LLP groundfish license with a Bering 
Sea area endorsement or an Aleutian Islands area endorsement when the 
vessel is

[[Page 54599]]

conducting directed fishing for groundfish in the BSAI pursuant to that 
LLP groundfish license and when the exemption is specified on the LLP 
license.
* * * * *
    (l) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (B) Duration of final AFA permits. (1) Except as provided in 
paragraphs (l)(1)(ii)(B)(2), (l)(1)(ii)(B)(3), (l)(5)(v)(B)(3), and 
(l)(6)(iii) of this section, AFA vessel and processor permits issued 
under this paragraph (l) are valid indefinitely unless the permit is 
suspended or revoked.
    (2) An AFA vessel permit is revoked when the vessel designated on 
the permit is replaced or removed under paragraph (l)(7) of this 
section.
    (3) In the event of a total loss or constructive loss of an AFA 
vessel,
    (i) The AFA vessel permit that designates the lost AFA vessel will 
be valid from the date of the vessel loss up to 5 years from December 
31 of the year in which the vessel was lost and will be suspended after 
that date, unless the AFA vessel permit for the lost vessel was revoked 
before that date because the lost vessel was replaced or removed under 
paragraph (l)(7) of this section. For example, if a vessel sinks on 
February 15, 2016, the AFA permit on the vessel will be valid until 
December 31, 2021, unless the owner of the vessel replaces or removes 
the vessel before December 31, 2021; after December 31, 2021, the AFA 
permit on the lost vessel will be suspended until the AFA vessel owner 
replaces or removes the lost vessel;
    (ii) The owner of the lost AFA vessel must notify NMFS in writing 
of the vessel loss within 120 days of the date of the total loss or 
constructive loss of the vessel;
    (iii) For purposes of paragraph (l)(1)(ii)(B)(3) of this section, 
an AFA lost vessel is a vessel that has been subject to a total loss or 
a constructive loss; a total loss means that the vessel is physically 
lost such as from sinking or a fire; a constructive loss means that the 
vessel suffered damage so that the cost of repairing the vessel 
exceeded the value of the vessel; the date of the total loss of a 
vessel is the date on which the physical loss occurred; the date of the 
constructive loss of a vessel is the date on which the damage to the 
vessel occurred.
* * * * *
    (2) * * *
    (iii) AFA replacement vessels. (A) NMFS will issue a listed AFA 
catcher/processor permit to the owner of a catcher/processor that is a 
replacement vessel for a vessel that was designated on a listed AFA 
catcher/processor permit.
    (B) NMFS will issue an unlisted AFA catcher/processor permit to the 
owner of a catcher/processor that is a replacement vessel for a vessel 
that was designated on an unlisted AFA catcher/processor permit.
* * * * *
    (3) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (A) * * *
    (2) Is not listed in paragraph (l)(3)(i)(A)(1) of this section and 
is determined by the Regional Administrator to have delivered at least 
250 mt and at least 75 percent of the pollock it harvested in the 
directed BSAI pollock fishery in 1997 to catcher/processors for 
processing by the offshore component; or
    (3) Is an AFA replacement vessel for a vessel that was designated 
on an AFA catcher vessel permit with a catcher/processor endorsement.
    (B) * * *
    (2) Is not listed in paragraph (l)(3)(i)(B)(1) of this section and 
is determined by the Regional Administrator to have delivered at least 
250 mt of pollock for processing by motherships in the offshore 
component of the BSAI directed pollock fishery in any one of the years 
1996 or 1997, or between January 1, 1998, and September 1, 1998, and is 
not eligible for an endorsement to deliver pollock to catcher/
processors under paragraph (l)(3)(i)(A) of this section; or
    (3) Is an AFA replacement vessel for a vessel that was designated 
on an AFA catcher vessel permit with a mothership endorsement.
    (C) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (ii) Is less than 60 ft (18.1 meters) LOA and is determined by the 
Regional Administrator to have delivered at least 40 mt of pollock 
harvested in the directed BSAI pollock fishery for processing by the 
inshore component in any one of the years 1996 or 1997, or between 
January 1, 1998, and September 1, 1998; or
    (3) Is an AFA replacement vessel for a vessel that was designated 
on an AFA catcher vessel permit with an inshore endorsement.
    (E) * * *
    (3) AFA replacement vessel for a catcher vessel that qualified for 
an exemption. A catcher vessel that is a replacement vessel for a 
vessel that was designated on an AFA catcher vessel permit with an 
exemption from a groundfish sideboard directed fishing closure will 
receive an AFA catcher vessel permit with the same exemption as the 
replaced vessel.
    (4) * * *
    (i) NMFS will issue to an owner of a mothership an AFA mothership 
permit if the mothership:
    (A) Is one of the following (as listed in paragraphs 208(d)(1) 
through (3) of the AFA):
    EXCELLENCE (USCG documentation number 967502);
    GOLDEN ALASKA (USCG documentation number 651041); and
    OCEAN PHOENIX (USCG documentation number 296779); or
    (B) Is an AFA replacement vessel for a vessel that was designated 
on an AFA mothership permit.
* * * * *
    (6) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (C) * * *
    (3) Each catcher vessel in the cooperative is a qualified catcher 
vessel and is otherwise eligible to fish for groundfish in the BSAI, 
except that a lost vessel that retains an AFA permit pursuant to 
paragraph (l)(1)(ii)(B)(3) of this section need not be designated on a 
Federal Fisheries Permit or an LLP license; has an AFA catcher vessel 
permit with an inshore endorsement; and has no permit sanctions or 
other type of sanctions against it that would prevent it from fishing 
for groundfish in the BSAI.
    (D) Qualified catcher vessels. For the purpose of paragraph 
(l)(6)(ii)(C)(3) of this section, a catcher vessel is a qualified 
catcher vessel if the catcher vessel meets the permit and landing 
requirements in paragraphs (l)(6)(ii)(D)(1) and (l)(6)(ii)(D)(2) of 
this section; the catcher vessel is an AFA replacement catcher vessel 
that meets the requirements in paragraph (l)(6)(ii)(D)(3) of this 
section; or the catcher vessel is an AFA lost catcher vessel that meets 
the requirements in paragraph (l)(6)(ii)(D)(4) of this section.
* * * * *
    (3) AFA replacement catcher vessels. The vessel is an AFA 
replacement vessel for a catcher vessel that met the permit and landing 
requirements in paragraphs (l)(6)(ii)(D)(1) and (l)(6)(ii)(D)(2) of 
this section;
    (4) AFA lost catcher vessels. In the event of a total loss or 
constructive loss of an AFA catcher vessel with an inshore endorsement, 
the owner of the lost vessel has an AFA catcher vessel permit with an 
inshore endorsement for the lost vessel that is valid pursuant to 
paragraph (l)(1)(ii)(B)(3) of this section, and the inshore cooperative 
shows:
    (i) The vessel was lost during a year when the vessel was 
designated on an

[[Page 54600]]

AFA inshore cooperative fishing permit issued to the cooperative 
submitting the application; or
    (ii) The vessel was lost during a year when the vessel was not 
designated on any AFA inshore cooperative fishing permit and when the 
vessel delivered more pollock to the AFA inshore processor designated 
by the inshore cooperative under paragraph (l)(6)(ii)(B) of this 
section than to any other processor; or
    (iii) The vessel was lost during a year when the vessel was not 
designated on any AFA inshore cooperative fishing permit and when the 
vessel had made no deliveries of pollock and the owner of the lost 
vessel has assigned the catch history of the lost vessel to the inshore 
cooperative that submits the application.
* * * * *
    (7) AFA rebuilt vessels, AFA replacement vessels, and removal of 
inshore AFA catcher vessels--(i) AFA rebuilt vessels. (A) To improve 
vessel safety or to improve operational efficiency, including fuel 
efficiency, the owner of an AFA vessel may rebuild the vessel. If the 
owner of an AFA vessel rebuilds the vessel, the owner must notify NMFS 
within 30 days of the issuance of the vessel documentation for the AFA 
rebuilt vessel and must provide NMFS with a copy of the vessel 
documentation for the rebuilt vessel. If the owner of the AFA rebuilt 
vessel provides NMFS with information demonstrating that the AFA 
rebuilt vessel is documented with a fishery endorsement issued under 46 
U.S.C. 12113, NMFS will acknowledge receipt of the notification and 
inform the owner that the AFA permit issued to the vessel before 
rebuilding is valid and can be used on the AFA rebuilt vessel.
    (B) Except as provided in paragraph (l)(7)(i)(C) and paragraph 
(l)(7)(i)(D) of this section, the owner of an AFA rebuilt vessel will 
be subject to the same requirements that applied to the vessel before 
rebuilding and will be eligible to use the AFA rebuilt vessel in the 
same manner as the vessel before rebuilding.
    (C) An AFA rebuilt vessel is exempt from the maximum length overall 
(MLOA) restriction on an LLP groundfish license with a Bering Sea area 
endorsement or an Aleutian Islands area endorsement when the AFA 
rebuilt vessel is conducting directed fishing for groundfish in the 
BSAI pursuant to that LLP groundfish license and the LLP groundfish 
license specifies the exemption.
    (D) If an AFA rebuilt catcher vessel is equal to or greater than 
125 ft (38.1 m) LOA, the AFA rebuilt catcher vessel will be subject to 
the catcher vessel exclusive fishing seasons for pollock in 50 CFR 
679.23(i) and will not be exempt from 50 CFR 679.23(i) even if the 
vessel before rebuilding was less than 125 ft (38.1 m) LOA and was 
exempt from 50 CFR 679.23(i).
    (ii) AFA replacement vessels. (A) To improve vessel safety or to 
improve operational efficiency, including fuel efficiency, the owner of 
an AFA vessel may replace the AFA vessel with a vessel that is 
documented with a fishery endorsement issued under 46 U.S.C. 12113.
    (B) Upon approval of an application to replace an AFA vessel 
pursuant to paragraph (l)(7) of this section and except as provided in 
paragraph (l)(7)(ii)(C), paragraph (l)(7)(ii)(D), and paragraph 
(l)(7)(E) of this section, the owner of an AFA replacement vessel will 
be subject to the same requirements that applied to the replaced vessel 
and will be eligible to use the AFA replacement vessel in the same 
manner as the replaced vessel. If the AFA replacement vessel is not 
already designated on an AFA permit, the Regional Administrator will 
issue an AFA permit to the owner of the AFA replacement vessel. The AFA 
permit that designated the replaced, or former, AFA vessel will be 
revoked.
    (C) An AFA replacement vessel is exempt from the maximum length 
overall (MLOA) restriction on an LLP groundfish license with a Bering 
Sea area endorsement or an Aleutian Islands area endorsement when the 
AFA replacement vessel is conducting directed fishing for groundfish in 
the BSAI pursuant to that LLP groundfish license and the LLP groundfish 
license specifies an exemption from the MLOA restriction for the AFA 
replacement vessel.
    (D) If an AFA replacement catcher vessel is equal to or greater 
than 125 ft (38.1 m) LOA, the AFA replacement catcher vessel will be 
subject to the catcher vessel exclusive fishing seasons for pollock in 
50 CFR 679.23(i) and will not be exempt from 50 CFR 679.23(i), even if 
the replaced vessel was less than 125 ft (38.1 m) LOA and was exempt 
from 50 CFR 679.23(i).
    (E) An AFA replacement catcher vessel for an AFA catcher vessel 
will have the same sideboard exemptions, if any, as the replaced AFA 
catcher vessel, except that if the AFA replacement vessel was already 
designated on an AFA permit as exempt from sideboard limits, the AFA 
replacement vessel will maintain its exemption even if the replaced 
vessel was not exempt from sideboard limits.
    (iii) Removal of AFA catcher vessel from the directed pollock 
fishery. (A) The owner of a catcher vessel that is designated on an AFA 
catcher vessel permit with an inshore endorsement may remove the 
catcher vessel from the directed pollock fishery, subject to the 
requirements in paragraphs (B), (C), and (D) of this paragraph 
(l)(7)(iii).
    (B) The owner of the removed catcher vessel must direct NMFS to 
assign the non-CDQ inshore pollock catch history in the BSAI of the 
removed vessel to one or more catcher vessels in the inshore fishery 
cooperative to which the removed vessel belonged at the time of the 
application for removal.
    (C) Except for the assignment of the pollock catch history of the 
removed catcher vessel in paragraph (l)(7)(iii)(B) of this section, all 
claims relating to the catch history of the removed catcher vessel in 
the Exclusive Economic Zone off Alaska, including any claims to an 
exemption from AFA sideboard limitations, will be permanently 
extinguished upon NMFS' approval of the application to remove the 
catcher vessel and the AFA permit that was held by the owner of the 
removed catcher vessel will be revoked.
    (D) The catcher vessel or vessels that are assigned the catch 
history of the removed catcher vessel cannot be removed from the 
fishery cooperative to which the removed catcher vessel belonged for a 
period of one year from the date that NMFS assigned the catch history 
of the removed catcher vessel to that vessel or vessels.
    (iv) Replaced vessels and removed vessels. An AFA vessel that is 
replaced or removed under paragraph (l)(7) of this section is 
permanently ineligible to receive any permit to participate in any 
fishery in the Exclusive Economic Zone off Alaska unless the replaced 
or removed vessel reenters the directed pollock fishery as a 
replacement vessel under paragraph (l)(7) of this section.
    (v) Application. To notify NMFS that the owner of an AFA vessel has 
rebuilt the AFA vessel, the owner of the AFA vessel must submit a 
complete application. To replace an AFA vessel with another vessel, 
NMFS must receive a complete application from the owner of the vessel 
that is being replaced. To remove an AFA catcher vessel from the 
directed pollock fishery, NMFS must receive a complete application from 
the owner of the vessel that is to be removed. An application must 
contain the information specified on the application form, with all 
required fields accurately completed and all required documentation 
attached. The application must be submitted to NMFS using the methods 
described on the

[[Page 54601]]

application. The application referred to in this paragraph is 
``American Fisheries Act (AFA) Permit: Rebuilt, Replacement, or Removed 
Vessel Application.''
    (8) * * *
    (i) Initial evaluation. The Regional Administrator will evaluate an 
application submitted in accord with paragraph (l) of this section. If 
the Regional Administrator determines that the applicant meets the 
requirements for NMFS to take the action requested on the application, 
NMFS will approve the application. If the Regional Administrator 
determines that the applicant has submitted claims based on 
inconsistent information or fails to submit the information specified 
in the application, the applicant will be provided a single 30-day 
evidentiary period to submit evidence to establish that the applicant 
meets the requirements for NMFS to take the requested action. The 
burden is on the applicant to establish that the applicant meets the 
criteria in the regulation for NMFS to take the action requested by the 
applicant.
    (ii) Additional information and evidence. The Regional 
Administrator will evaluate the additional information or evidence 
submitted by the applicant within the 30-day evidentiary period. If the 
Regional Administrator determines that the additional information or 
evidence meets the applicant's burden of proof, the application will be 
approved. However, if the Regional Administrator determines that the 
applicant did not meet the applicant's burden of proof, the applicant 
will be notified by an initial administrative determination (IAD) that 
the application is denied.
    (iii) Initial administrative determinations (IAD). The Regional 
Administrator will prepare and send an IAD to the applicant following 
the expiration of the 30-day evidentiary period if the Regional 
Administrator determines that the information or evidence provided by 
the applicant fails to support the applicant's claims and is 
insufficient to establish that the applicant meets the requirements for 
an AFA permit or for NMFS to approve the withdrawal of a catcher 
vessel, or if the additional information, evidence, or revised 
application is not provided within the time period specified in the 
letter that notifies the applicant of the applicant's 30-day 
evidentiary period. The IAD will indicate the deficiencies in the 
application, including any deficiencies with the information, the 
evidence submitted in support of the information, or the revised 
application. An applicant who receives an IAD may appeal under the 
appeals procedures set out at 15 CFR part 906.
* * * * *
    (o) * * *
    (4) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (D) The replacement vessel is not a vessel listed at section 
208(e)(1) through (20) of the American Fisheries Act or permitted under 
paragraph (l)(2)(i) of this section; is not an AFA replacement vessel 
designated on a listed AFA catcher/processor permit under paragraph 
(l)(2)of this section; and is not an AFA catcher vessel permitted under 
paragraph (l)(3) of this section.
* * * * *

0
6. In Sec.  679.7, revise paragraphs (i)(6), (k)(1)(ii), (k)(1)(iii), 
(k)(1)(iv), (k)(1)(v), (k)(1)(vi)(A) heading, (k)(1)(vi)(B) heading, 
(k)(1)(vii)(A) heading, (k)(1)(vii)(B) heading, and (k)(2)(ii) to read 
as follows:


Sec.  679.7  Prohibitions.

* * * * *
    (i) * * *
    (6) Use a vessel to fish for LLP groundfish or crab species, or 
allow a vessel to be used to fish for LLP groundfish or crab species, 
that has an LOA that exceeds the MLOA specified on the license that 
authorizes fishing for LLP groundfish or crab species, except if the 
person is using the vessel to fish for LLP groundfish in the Bering Sea 
subarea or the Aleutian Islands subarea pursuant to an LLP license that 
specifies an exemption from the MLOA on the LLP license.
* * * * *
    (k) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii) Fishing in the GOA. Use a listed AFA catcher/processor or a 
catcher/processor designated on a listed AFA catcher/processor permit 
to harvest any species of fish in the GOA.
    (iii) Processing BSAI crab. Use a listed AFA catcher/processor or a 
catcher/processor designated on a listed AFA catcher/processor permit 
to process any crab species harvested in the BSAI.
    (iv) Processing GOA groundfish. (A) Use a listed AFA catcher/
processor or a catcher/processor designated on a listed AFA catcher/
processor permit to process any pollock harvested in a directed pollock 
fishery in the GOA and any groundfish harvested in Statistical Area 630 
of the GOA.
    (B) Use a listed AFA catcher/processor or a catcher/processor 
designated on a listed AFA catcher/processor permit as a stationary 
floating processor for Pacific cod in the GOA and a catcher/processor 
in the GOA during the same year.
    (v) Directed fishing after a sideboard closure. Use a listed AFA 
catcher/processor or a catcher/processor designated on a listed AFA 
catcher/processor permit to engage in directed fishing for a groundfish 
species or species group in the BSAI after the Regional Administrator 
has issued an AFA catcher/processor sideboard directed fishing closure 
for that groundfish species or species group under Sec.  
679.20(d)(1)(iv) or Sec.  679.21(e)(3)(v).
    (vi) * * *
    (A) Listed AFA catcher/processors and catcher/processors designated 
on listed AFA catcher/processor permits. * * *
    (B) Unlisted AFA catcher/processors and catcher/processors 
designated on unlisted AFA catcher/processor permits. * * *
    (vii) * * *
    (A) Listed AFA catcher/processors and catcher/processors designated 
on listed AFA catcher/processor permits. * * *
    (B) Unlisted AFA catcher/processors and catcher/processors 
designated on unlisted AFA catcher/processor permits. * * *
* * * * *
    (2) * * *
    (ii) Processing GOA groundfish. Use an AFA mothership as a 
stationary floating processor for Pacific cod in the GOA and a 
mothership in the GOA during the same year.
* * * * *

0
7. In Sec.  679.51, revise paragraphs (a)(2)(vi)(B)(1) and (3) to read 
as follows:


Sec.  679.51  Observer requirements for vessels and plants.

    (a) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (vi) * * *
    (B) * * *
    (1) Listed AFA catcher/processors, catcher/processors designated on 
listed AFA catcher/processor permits, and AFA motherships. The owner or 
operator of a listed AFA catcher/processor, a catcher/processor 
designated on a listed AFA catcher/processor permit, or an AFA 
mothership must have aboard at least two observers, at least one of 
whom must be certified as a lead level 2 observer, for each day that 
the vessel is used to catch, process, or receive groundfish. More than 
two observers must be aboard if the observer workload restriction would 
otherwise preclude sampling as required.
* * * * *
    (3) Unlisted AFA catcher/processors and catcher/processors 
designated on unlisted AFA catcher/processor permits.

[[Page 54602]]

The owner or operator of an unlisted AFA catcher/processor or a 
catcher/processor designated on an unlisted AFA catcher/processor 
permit must have aboard at least two observers for each day that the 
vessel is used to engage in directed fishing for pollock in the BSAI, 
or receive pollock harvested in the BSAI. At least one observer must be 
certified as a lead level 2 observer. When a listed AFA catcher/
processor is not engaged in directed fishing for BSAI pollock and is 
not receiving pollock harvested in the BSAI, the observer coverage 
requirements at paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this section apply.
* * * * *

0
8. In Sec.  679.62, redesignate paragraphs (a)(2) and (3) as paragraphs 
(a)(3) and (4), respectively, and add new paragraph (a)(2) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  679.62  Inshore sector cooperative allocation program.

    (a) * * *
    (2) Determination of individual vessel catch histories after 
approval of replacement of catcher vessel and approval of removal of 
catcher vessel from the AFA directed pollock fishery. (i) If NMFS 
approves the application of an owner of a catcher vessel that is a 
member of an inshore vessel cooperative to replace a catcher vessel 
pursuant to Sec.  679.4(l)(7), NMFS will assign the AFA inshore pollock 
catch history of the replaced vessel to the replacement vessel.
    (ii) If NMFS approves the application of an owner of a catcher 
vessel that is a member of an inshore vessel cooperative to remove a 
catcher vessel from the AFA directed pollock fishery pursuant to Sec.  
679.4(l)(7), NMFS will assign the AFA inshore pollock catch history of 
the removed vessel to one or more vessels in the inshore vessel 
cooperative to which the removed vessel belonged as required by Sec.  
679.4(l)(7); NMFS will not assign the catch history for any non-pollock 
species of the removed vessel to any other vessel, and NMFS will 
permanently extinguish any exemptions from sideboards that were 
specified on the AFA permit of the removed vessel.
* * * * *

0
9. In Sec.  679.63, redesignate paragraph (c) as paragraph (d) and add 
new paragraph (c) to read as follows:


Sec.  679.63  Catch weighing requirements for vessels and processors.

* * * * *
    (c) What are the requirements for AFA replacement vessels? The 
owner and operator of an AFA replacement vessel are subject to the 
catch weighing requirements and the observer sampling station 
requirements in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section that applied to 
the owner and operator of the replaced vessel.
* * * * *

0
10. In Sec.  679.64:
0
a. Revise paragraph (a) heading and introductory text and paragraph 
(a)(1) heading; and
0
b. Add paragraphs (b)(2)(iii) and (iv).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  679.64  Harvesting sideboard limits in other fisheries.

    (a) Harvesting sideboards for listed AFA catcher/processors and 
catcher/processors designated on listed AFA catcher/processor permits. 
The Regional Administrator will restrict the ability of listed AFA 
catcher/processors and a catcher/processor designated on a listed AFA 
catcher/processor permit to engage in directed fishing for non-pollock 
groundfish species to protect participants in other groundfish 
fisheries from adverse effects resulting from the AFA and from fishery 
cooperatives in the BS subarea directed pollock fishery.
    (1) How will groundfish sideboard limits for AFA listed catcher/
processors and catcher/processors designated on listed AFA catcher/
processor permits be calculated? * * *
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (iii) An AFA rebuilt catcher vessel will have the same sideboard 
exemptions, if any, as the vessel before rebuilding, irrespective of 
the length of the AFA rebuilt catcher vessel.
    (iv) An AFA replacement vessel for an AFA catcher vessel will have 
the same sideboard exemptions, if any, as the replaced AFA catcher 
vessel, irrespective of the length of the AFA replacement vessel, 
except that if the replacement vessel was already designated on an AFA 
permit as exempt from sideboard limits, the replacement vessel will 
maintain the exemption even if the replaced vessel was not exempt from 
sideboard limits.
* * * * *


Sec. Sec.  679.4 and 679.51  [Amended]

0
11. At each of the locations shown in the ``Location'' column, remove 
the phrase indicated in the ``Remove'' column and add in its place the 
phrase indicated in the ``Add'' column for the number of times 
indicated in the ``Frequency'' column.

 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Location                           Remove                          Add                Frequency
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   679.4(a)(1)(iii)(A) and           Indefinite................  Indefinite unless permit is               1
 (a)(1)(iii)(C).                                                      revoked after vessel is
                                                                      replaced or permit is
                                                                      suspended after vessel is
                                                                      lost.
Sec.   679.4(a)(1)(iii)(B).............  Indefinite................  Indefinite unless permit is               1
                                                                      revoked after vessel is
                                                                      replaced or removed, or
                                                                      permit is suspended after
                                                                      vessel is lost.
Sec.   679.51(f)(5)....................  (a)(2)(vi)(B)(1) and (2)..  (a)(2)(vi)(B)(1) through (3)..            1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2014-21829 Filed 9-11-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P