Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area; Amendment 97, 59852-59872 [2012-24100]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 190 (Monday, October 1, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 59852-59872]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-24100]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 679

[Docket No. 110620343-2450-02]
RIN 0648-BB18


Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Bering Sea 
and Aleutian Islands Management Area; Amendment 97

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS publishes regulations to implement Amendment 97 to the 
Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian 
Islands Management Area (FMP). Amendment 97 allows the owner of a trawl 
catcher/processor vessel authorized to participate in the Amendment 80 
catch share program to replace that vessel with a vessel that meets 
certain requirements. This action establishes the regulatory process 
for replacement of vessels in the Amendment 80 fleet and the 
requirements for Amendment 80 replacement vessels, such as a limit on 
the overall length of a replacement vessel, a prohibition on the use of 
an AFA vessel as a replacement vessel, measures to prevent a replaced 
vessel from participating in Federal groundfish fisheries off Alaska 
that are not Amendment 80 fisheries, and measures that extend specific 
catch limits (known as Amendment 80 sideboards) to a replacement 
vessel. This action is necessary to promote safety-at-sea by allowing 
Amendment 80 vessel owners to replace their vessels for any reason at 
any time and by requiring replacement

[[Page 59853]]

vessels to meet certain U.S. Coast Guard vessel safety standards, and 
to improve the retention and utilization of groundfish catch by these 
vessels by facilitating an increase in the processing capabilities of 
the fleet. This action is intended to promote the goals and objectives 
of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the 
FMP, and other applicable laws.

DATES: Effective October 31, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Electronic copies of this rule, the Environmental Assessment 
(EA), Regulatory Impact Review (RIR), and the initial regulatory 
flexibility analysis (IRFA) prepared for this action may be obtained 
from https://www.regulations.gov or from the Alaska Region Web site at 
https://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov.
    Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other 
aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this 
final rule may be submitted by mail to NMFS, Alaska Region, P.O. Box 
21668, Juneau, AK 99802-1668, Attn: Ellen Sebastian, Records Officer; 
in person at NMFS, Alaska Region, 709 West 9th Street, Room 420A, 
Juneau, AK; or by email to OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov, or fax to 202-
395-7285.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Seanbob Kelly, 907-586-7228.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS manages the U.S. groundfish fisheries 
of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (BSAI) in the 
Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) under the FMP. The North Pacific Fishery 
Management Council (Council) prepared the FMP pursuant to the Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) 
and other applicable laws. Regulations implementing the FMP appear at 
50 CFR part 679. General regulations that pertain to U.S. fisheries 
appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600.
    This final rule implements Amendment 97 to the FMP. Under this 
final rule, the owner of a trawl catcher/processor vessel authorized to 
participate in the Amendment 80 catch share program is allowed to 
replace that vessel with a vessel that meets certain requirements. NMFS 
published the Notice of Availability for Amendment 97 in the Federal 
Register on March 6, 2012 (77 FR 13253), with a 60-day comment period 
that ended May 7, 2012. The Secretary approved Amendment 97 on June 6, 
2012, after determining that Amendment 97 is consistent with the FMP, 
the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law. NMFS published a 
proposed rule for Amendment 97 in the Federal Register on April 4, 2012 
(77 FR 20339). The 30-day comment period on the proposed rule ended May 
4, 2012. NMFS received a total of 15 comment letters from 11 unique 
persons during the comment periods on Amendment 97 and the proposed 
rule implementing the amendment. The letters contained 13 separate 
topics. A summary of these comments and NMFS's responses are provided 
in the Comments and Responses section of this preamble.

Elements of the Final Rule

    A detailed review of the provisions of Amendment 97 and its 
implementing regulations is provided in the preamble to the proposed 
rule (77 FR 20339, April 4, 2012) and is not repeated here. The 
proposed rule is available from the NMFS Alaska Region Web site (see 
ADDRESSES). The preamble to this final rule provides a brief review of 
the regulatory changes made by this final rule to the management of the 
Amendment 80 fleet and an explanation of any differences between the 
proposed and final regulations. NMFS' responses to public comments on 
Amendment 97 and the proposed rule to implement Amendment 97 are also 
presented below.
    This final rule establishes regulations that permit the owner of an 
Amendment 80 vessel to replace that vessel with up to one other vessel 
for any reason and at any time. The vessel replacement process 
established by this final rule provides Amendment 80 vessel owners with 
the flexibility to incorporate a broad range of processing 
opportunities that are not currently available on all vessels. 
Regulations implemented by this final rule are intended to facilitate 
improved retention and utilization of catch by the Amendment 80 sector 
through vessel upgrades and new vessel construction. This final rule 
also is intended to address the regulatory deficiencies that were 
identified by the court in Arctic Sole Seafoods v. Gutierrez, 622 F. 
Supp. 2d 1050 (W.D. Wash. 2008). Specifically, this final rule: (1) 
Allows Amendment 80 vessels to be replaced for any reason at any time, 
up to a one-for-one vessel replacement; (2) prohibits American 
Fisheries Act (AFA) vessels from being used as Amendment 80 replacement 
vessels; (3) establishes a maximum vessel length for Amendment 80 
replacement vessels and modifies the maximum length over-all (MLOA) on 
License Limitation Program (LLP) licenses assigned to Amendment 80 
replacement vessels; (4) establishes a process for reassigning an 
Amendment 80 Quota Share (QS) permit to either an Amendment 80 
replacement vessel or an Amendment 80 LLP license; (5) imposes 
sideboard limitations on replaced vessels; (6) applies Gulf of Alaska 
(GOA) sideboard measures to an Amendment 80 replacement vessel if GOA 
sideboard measures applied to the Amendment 80 vessel being replaced, 
with exceptions for the F/V Golden Fleece; (7) establishes specific 
regulatory restrictions and requirements that apply to any vessel that 
replaces the F/V Golden Fleece; (8) allows an Amendment 80 replacement 
vessel to conduct directed fishing for GOA flatfish if the Amendment 80 
vessel being replaced was authorized to conduct directed fishing for 
GOA flatfish; (9) requires an owner to demonstrate to NMFS an Amendment 
80 replacement vessel's compliance with U.S. Coast Guard safety 
requirements; and (10) establishes a process by which a vessel owner 
can apply to NMFS for approval to use an Amendment 80 replacement 
vessel in the Amendment 80 sector. Finally, this action demonstrates to 
the U.S. Maritime Administration (MARAD) that the Council and NMFS have 
authorized Amendment 80 replacement vessels to exceed specific vessel 
limits set forth in the AFA and therefore Amendment 80 replacement 
vessels that exceed these limits are eligible to receive a certificate 
of documentation consistent with 46 U.S.C. 12113 and MARAD regulations 
at 46 CFR 356.47.

Replacement for Any Reason at Any Time, Up to One-for-One Vessel 
Replacement

    The regulations implemented by this final rule, at Sec.  
679.4(o)(1)(v) and (vii), allow an owner of an Amendment 80 vessel to 
replace the vessel for any reason and at any time up to a one-for-one 
vessel replacement. The Council determined, and NMFS agrees, that a 
vessel owner is best-suited to determine the appropriate time to 
replace a vessel, and that the vessel owner should be afforded broad 
discretion as to the reasons supporting vessel replacement. This final 
rule enables a vessel owner to initiate new construction of a 
replacement vessel while the vessel to be replaced is still active 
(i.e., before it is lost), providing an opportunity for a potentially 
seamless replacement process and thereby reducing potential costs 
associated with foregone harvests.
    Although the owner of an Amendment 80 vessel can apply to use an 
existing Amendment 80 vessel as an Amendment 80 replacement vessel, or 
other vessels that otherwise meet the requirements of this final rule, 
the

[[Page 59854]]

Council and NMFS anticipate that most replacement vessels will be newly 
constructed and larger than the vessel being replaced. Many of the 
existing vessels in the Amendment 80 fleet were originally constructed 
for purposes other than fishing; therefore, these vessels may be less 
well-designed for fishing than a new, purposefully constructed fishing 
vessel would be. A vessel built to contemporary standards is likely 
have improved hold capacity, fuel efficiency, and harvest capacity 
relative to existing similarly sized vessels in the Amendment 80 fleet. 
Such modifications can enable a vessel operator to store large 
quantities of fish and create or make value-added products like surimi, 
fillets, and fishmeal in onboard fishmeal plants. Replacing a smaller 
vessel with a larger vessel could allow participants to fish for longer 
periods of time and reduce the number of trips required to offload 
products. As an alternative to new vessel construction, this final rule 
also enables the owner of an Amendment 80 vessel to replace an aging or 
underperforming vessel with an existing vessel, including a vessel 
currently prosecuting Amendment 80 fisheries. As described below, this 
final rule requires all Amendment 80 replacement vessels, including 
vessels that are currently participating in an Amendment 80 fishery, to 
meet contemporary vessel construction and safety standards, and other 
applicable regulations established by this final rule. A detailed 
review of the Amendment 80 fleet safety regulations implemented by this 
final rule also can be found in Section 2.4.9.1 of the EA/RIR/IRFA for 
this action and in the preamble to the proposed rule (see ADDRESSES).
    Although an Amendment 80 vessel owner is authorized to replace the 
vessel at any time for any reason, the final rule limits the number of 
replacement vessels an owner may have, requiring that each Amendment 80 
vessel may be replaced by no more than one vessel at any given time. 
Under the Amendment 80 program, NMFS determined that 28 vessels met the 
criteria for participation and therefore were eligible to participate 
in the Amendment 80 sector. Under this final rule, in no case could 
more than 28 vessels participate in the Amendment 80 fisheries at any 
given time.

American Fisheries Act Vessels and Amendment 80 Vessel Replacement

    This final rule includes a provision that prohibits the use of AFA 
vessels as Amendment 80 replacement vessels. The following paragraphs 
provide the background for and an explanation of this provision.
    Regulations implementing Amendment 80 limited participation in the 
Amendment 80 sector to non-AFA trawl catcher/processors that qualified 
under the definition of the non-AFA trawl catcher/processor subsector 
in section 219(a)(7) of the BSAI Catcher Processor Capacity Reduction 
Program (CRP), included in the Department of Commerce and Related 
Agencies Appropriations Act, 2005 (Pub. L. 108-447). Section 
219(g)(1)(A) of the CRP provides that only a member of a catcher/
processor subsector may participate in the catcher/processor sector of 
the BSAI non-pollock groundfish fishery. Four catcher processor 
subsectors are defined by the CRP, including the AFA trawl catcher 
processor subsector at section 219(a)(1) and the non-AFA trawl catcher 
processor subsector at section 219(a)(7). Section 219(a)(7) of the CRP 
defines the ``non-AFA trawl catcher processor subsector'' as ``the 
owner of each trawl catcher processor--(A) that is not an AFA trawl 
catcher processor; (B) to whom a valid LLP license that is endorsed for 
Bering Sea or Aleutian Islands trawl catcher processor fishing activity 
has been issued; and (C) that the Secretary determines has harvested 
with trawl gear and processed not less than a total of 150 metric tons 
of non-pollock groundfish during the period January 1, 1997 through 
December 31, 2002.'' NMFS determined that 28 vessels met the criteria 
specified in section 219(a)(7) of the CRP. NMFS listed these vessels in 
the final rule implementing Amendment 80 (September 14, 2007; 72 FR 
52668). NMFS concluded that because the CRP set forth the criteria for 
vessels eligible to participate in the non-AFA trawl catcher/processor, 
or Amendment 80, sector, only the 28 listed vessels could be used in 
the Amendment 80 sector and only a listed qualifying vessel could be 
used to replace an originally qualifying vessel.
    Arctic Sole Seafoods challenged the final rule, arguing that 
section 219(a)(7) permitted the replacement of qualifying vessels with 
non-qualifying vessels and that the prohibition on such replacement was 
contrary to the language of the CRP. On May 19, 2008, the U.S. District 
Court for the Western District of Washington issued a decision 
invalidating those Amendment 80 regulatory provisions that limited the 
vessels used in the Amendment 80 sector to only those vessels that meet 
the qualification criteria in section 219(a)(7) of the CRP. In Arctic 
Sole Seafoods v. Gutierrez, 622 F.Supp.2d 1050 (W.D. Wash. 2008), the 
court found the statutory language ambiguous as to whether replacement 
of qualifying vessels with non-qualifying vessels was permissible, and 
found the agency's interpretation of the statute to be arbitrary and 
capricious. The court held that the CRP applies to the owners of 
vessels that meet the statutory criteria for the non-AFA trawl catcher/
processor subsector, and that the owner of a qualifying vessel could 
replace that vessel with a non-qualifying vessel. The court noted that 
Congress, through the CRP, limited the universe of owners authorized to 
participate in the BSAI non-pollock groundfish fishery by limiting 
eligibility to those individuals who own vessels with a particular 
catch history and who have a particular license, but that nothing in 
the CRP indicated that Congress was concerned with which particular 
vessels are used in the BSAI non-pollock groundfish fishery. The court 
determined that an owner of a non-AFA trawl catcher/processor vessel 
must satisfy the criteria specified in section 219(a)(7) to originally 
qualify for the non-AFA trawl catcher/processor subsector and the 
Amendment 80 sector, but the owner of such a vessel may replace that 
vessel with a vessel that does not meet the original qualifying 
criteria of the CRP but that is otherwise eligible to participate in 
the BSAI non-pollock groundfish fishery. The court concluded that the 
inability to replace a qualifying vessel with a non-qualifying vessel 
would ultimately result in the elimination of the sector through vessel 
attrition, and that Congress had not intended such an outcome in the 
CRP. The court ordered that ``[t]o the extent that [regulations] 
restrict access to the BSAI non-pollock groundfish fishery to 
qualifying vessels without allowing a qualified owner to replace a lost 
qualifying vessel with a single substitute vessel, the regulations must 
be set aside * * *.''
    After receiving the court's decision, NMFS immediately developed 
and issued interim guidance for vessel replacement consistent with the 
court's decision. In October 2008, NMFS asked the Council to amend the 
FMP to clarify the conditions under which an Amendment 80 vessel may be 
replaced consistent with the court's decision, the CRP, and the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act. In response, the Council initiated development of 
Amendment 97. The Council initially received an analysis for Amendment 
97 at its February 2010 meeting. This analysis included a summary of 
the interim guidance NMFS prepared for vessel replacement, including a 
revised version of the

[[Page 59855]]

responses to frequently asked questions contained within the guidance. 
In response to the question of whether there are any limitations on the 
characteristics of a replacement vessel, the analysis states, ``Because 
the CRP makes a clear distinction between the AFA and non-AFA trawl 
catcher/processor subsectors, an AFA catcher/processor as defined by 
the CRP would be ineligible to fish as a non-AFA trawl catcher/
processor and could not replace an Amendment 80 vessel.'' No additional 
explanation for this statement is provided in the analysis. This 
statement remained in the analysis during the Council's consideration 
of Amendment 97, the interpretation of the CRP was not challenged 
during the Council process, the Council did not consider an alternative 
that would allow the use of AFA vessels as Amendment 80 replacement 
vessels, and thus the analysis does not include an evaluation of those 
considerations. As a result, the Council did not recommend a 
prohibition or other limitation on the use of an AFA vessel as an 
Amendment 80 replacement vessel in its final motion on Amendment 97 in 
June 2010.
    In February 2012, before the start of Secretarial review of 
Amendment 97, NMFS received a letter from a member of the public 
asserting that the CRP and the court's decision in Arctic Sole Seafoods 
v. Gutierrez do not prohibit the use of an AFA vessel as an Amendment 
80 replacement vessel. The commenter stated that ``[t]he distinction 
the CRP draws between AFA and non-AFA vessels is only for purposes of 
specifying which vessels owners initially qualified for the Amendment 
80 sector'' and that while an owner of a vessel had to meet the 
criteria specified in section 219(a)(7) to initially qualify for the 
non-AFA trawl catcher/processor subsector, including the criterion that 
the vessel not be an AFA trawl catcher/processor, ``[t]he CRP does not 
limit the universe of vessels that a qualified owner may then draw from 
to replace the vessel through which it initially entered the Amendment 
80 sector.''
    In the proposed rule preamble, the agency advised that following 
receipt of the letter, it re-examined the CRP and decision in Arctic 
Sole Seafoods v. Gutierrez regarding whether the CRP prohibits use of 
an AFA vessel as an Amendment 80 replacement vessel. Based on that re-
examination, it stated in the preamble its view that the CRP did not 
prohibit use of an AFA vessel, and that in the absence of an explicit 
regulatory prohibition recommended by the Council, the rule as proposed 
did not prohibit use of an AFA vessel. NMFS invited the public to 
comment on the proposed rule, including the potential use of AFA 
vessels as Amendment 80 replacement vessels.
    During the public comment periods for Amendment 97 and the proposed 
rule, NMFS received extensive public comment on the question of whether 
the CRP prohibits the use of AFA vessels as Amendment 80 replacement 
vessels, the lack of Council consideration or analysis of this issue, 
and the potential economic impacts that could result from the use of 
AFA vessels as Amendment 80 replacement vessels. As summarized in 
Comments 4 and 7 in the Comments and Responses section of this final 
rule, some commenters wrote in support of the view that the CRP does 
not prohibit the use of AFA vessels as Amendment 80 replacement vessels 
and suggested that the sideboards applicable to AFA vessels should not 
be imposed on AFA vessels that are used as Amendment 80 replacement 
vessels. However, as summarized in Comments 5 and 6, some commenters 
disagreed with the view that the CRP does not prohibit use of AFA 
vessels as Amendment 80 replacement vessels. These commenters expressed 
concerns about the use of AFA vessels and asserted that the Council did 
not intend for AFA vessels to be eligible to replace Amendment 80 
vessels. Additionally, these commenters noted that the analysis 
prepared for the action and available to the Council at the time of 
final action did not describe the potential impacts that could result 
from the use of AFA vessels as Amendment 80 replacement vessels. These 
commenters suggested that a regulation that would allow AFA vessels to 
participate in the Amendment 80 sector would represent a significant 
change in the policy that formed the basis of the Council's 
recommendation at final action and that the policy change would 
destabilize status quo management of groundfish fisheries in the North 
Pacific.
    After consideration of all comments received during the public 
comment periods for Amendment 97 and the proposed rule, NMFS determined 
that notwithstanding its view that the CRP does not prohibit the use of 
AFA vessels as Amendment 80 replacement vessels, a regulatory provision 
prohibiting the use of AFA vessels as Amendment 80 replacement vessels 
is necessary to carry out Amendment 97 as recommended by the Council 
and approved by NMFS. The prohibition is further necessary to allow 
NMFS to conclude that Amendment 97 as implemented is consistent with 
the FMP as required by section 304 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act in light 
of the issues raised by the commenters concerning adverse impacts to 
the groundfish fisheries and fishery participants that could occur if 
AFA vessels are used, and the current lack of record support 
demonstrating that no impacts other than those described in the 
analysis for Amendment 97 would occur if AFA vessels are used. 
Therefore, NMFS has included in this final rule a provision at Sec.  
679.4(o)(4)(i)(D) that prohibits the use of AFA vessels as Amendment 80 
replacement vessels.
    NMFS determined that the prohibition is an integral part of 
Amendment 97 as adopted and recommended by the Council. Although the 
Council did not specifically articulate the prohibition in its motion 
for Amendment 97, the Council implicitly incorporated the prohibition 
into its decision on Amendment 97. The Council based its motion for 
Amendment 97 on the analysis and public comments presented to it. As 
explained earlier, the analysis stated that AFA vessels could not be 
used as Amendment 80 replacement vessels. That conclusion was not 
challenged while the Council was considering Amendment 97. Given the 
lack of any analysis, alternative or Council discussion on this issue, 
it is difficult to conclude that the Council intended to permit the use 
of AFA vessels as Amendment 80 replacement vessels. NMFS also 
determined that a regulation implementing the Council's implicit 
prohibition is necessary because the omission of such a prohibition 
from the final rule implementing Amendment 97 could undermine the 
intent of Amendment 97 as adopted by the Council. This final rule 
establishes an application process by which NMFS approves Amendment 80 
replacement vessels. Without a regulatory provision prohibiting the use 
of AFA vessels as Amendment 80 replacement vessels, NMFS would have no 
basis upon which to deny an application requesting that NMFS approve an 
AFA vessel as an Amendment 80 replacement vessel, if the AFA vessel met 
all the regulatory criteria for Amendment 80 vessel replacement. 
Therefore, a regulation implementing the Council's implicit prohibition 
on the use of AFA vessels as Amendment 80 replacement vessels in 
Amendment 97 is needed. NMFS is authorized to include this prohibition 
under section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. 1855(d)), 
which states that NMFS has general responsibility to carry out any 
fishery management plan or plan amendment approved by NMFS and that 
NMFS may

[[Page 59856]]

promulgate such regulations in accordance with the Administrative 
Procedure Act (APA) as may be necessary to discharge that 
responsibility.
    NMFS also determined that a regulatory prohibition on the use of 
AFA vessels as Amendment 80 replacement vessels is reasonable and that 
the protections the prohibition affords the Amendment 80 sector are 
justified given the lack of analysis on the impacts that could occur if 
AFA vessels are permitted to be used as Amendment 80 replacement 
vessels and the concerns that exist at this time on adverse effects on 
the fisheries and participants that could occur without a prohibition. 
The analysis for Amendment 97 fully describes the anticipated impacts 
of authorizing vessel replacement in the Amendment 80 sector with 
vessels that are not AFA vessels, with an exception for the F/V Ocean 
Peace which is both an AFA and an Amendment 80 vessel. However, the 
analysis does not provide any information on the potential effects and 
impacts of allowing AFA vessels to be used as Amendment 80 replacement 
vessels on fishing operations in both the AFA and the Amendment 80 
sectors. Without this analysis, NMFS does not have adequate information 
on which to assess the potential impacts of the use of AFA vessels as 
Amendment 80 replacement vessels, or the specific parameters under 
which AFA vessels could be used as Amendment 80 replacement vessels. 
NMFS currently lacks the necessary information and analysis 
demonstrating that the use of AFA vessels as Amendment 80 replacement 
vessels is consistent with the FMP and the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
    Additionally, as summarized in Comments 5 and 6, some participants 
in the Amendment 80 sector asserted that the use of AFA vessels would 
have an adverse impact on their fishing operations. Although NMFS does 
not yet have adequate information to determine the degree of these 
impacts, the concerns expressed over the potential for AFA vessels to 
be more competitive than other Amendment 80 vessels create 
unanticipated and undesirable consolidation within the sectors, and 
cause adverse disruption of fishing operations appear to have some 
merit at this time. NMFS has determined that consolidation of the 
Amendment 80 sector in excess of what the analysis prepared for 
Amendment 97 anticipates could occur if AFA vessels are permitted to be 
used as Amendment 80 replacement vessels. This unanticipated 
consolidation has the potential to impact communities, crew, the 
conservation and sustainability of fishery resources, the timing of the 
fishery, and the value of the fishery in ways that ultimately may not 
be consistent with the goals and objectives of the FMP. NMFS recognizes 
that this final rule may indirectly impact vessel owners by limiting 
the potential amount of consolidation and efficiency that may have been 
possible through fleet consolidation in the absence of a prohibition. 
However, given the agency's concerns and the information available at 
this time, NMFS cannot conclude that the impacts resulting from the use 
of AFA vessels as Amendment 80 replacement vessels would be consistent 
with Amendment 97 and the FMP, as required by section 304 of the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act.
    NMFS also determined that the prohibition will not adversely affect 
existing operations of AFA vessel owners. As noted in the analysis 
prepared for this rule, no AFA vessels (other than the F/V Ocean Peace) 
are active in the Amendment 80 sector. The prohibition will not affect 
the F/V Ocean Peace. While the prohibition will limit potential future 
operations of AFA vessels as Amendment 80 replacement vessels, AFA 
vessel owners will be able to continue all existing fishing operations 
unaffected by the prohibition. While some AFA vessels owners are 
advocating for the use of AFA vessels as Amendment 80 replacement 
vessels, NMFS has received no information through the public comments 
received on Amendment 97 or the proposed rule that indicates any 
Amendment 80 vessel owners are seeking to transfer their Amendment 80 
QS to AFA vessel owners. The available public comment indicates that 
such transfers are generally opposed by participants in the Amendment 
80 sector. Therefore, it is unlikely that this prohibition will have a 
foreseeable effect on potential future AFA vessel operations. Although 
the prohibition only pertains to the use of AFA vessels as Amendment 80 
replacement vessels, NMFS notes that this final rule does not prevent 
AFA vessel owners from purchasing assets in the Amendment 80 fisheries, 
including Amendment 80 QS and Amendment 80 vessels, which has been 
possible since the Amendment 80 program was effective in 2008.
    NMFS determined that including the prohibition on using AFA vessels 
as Amendment 80 replacement vessels will not prevent either the 
Amendment 80 or the AFA sectors from achieving the conservation and 
management goals and objectives set forth in the FMP for these sectors. 
The prohibition will not prevent the Amendment 80 sector from replacing 
lost or aging vessels with safer, more efficient vessels. Although an 
Amendment 80 vessel owner will not be able to use an AFA vessel as a 
replacement vessel, this final rule allows the owner to use other non-
AFA vessels if the Amendment 80 vessel owner chooses not to invest in a 
newly constructed vessel. AFA vessel owners will be able to prosecute 
the fisheries in which they have been participating without change. As 
mentioned earlier in this preamble, the inclusion of the prohibition 
does not remove a harvest opportunity that the AFA sector was 
benefitting from prior to this final rule. With an exception for the F/
V Ocean Peace, which is both an AFA and an Amendment 80 vessel, no AFA 
vessel has been used in the Amendment 80 sector since Amendment 80 was 
implemented. As for the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Council articulated 
how Amendment 97, without the use of AFA vessels as Amendment 80 
replacement vessels, and this final rule are consistent with the 
national standards and the other provisions of the MSA. NMFS concurred 
in the Council's explanation in the agency's approval of Amendment 97 
and issuance of this final rule.
    NMFS has determined that the prohibition in this final rule is a 
logical outgrowth of the proposed rule and is consistent with other 
applicable laws. The preamble to the proposed rule for Amendment 97 
explained that the proposed rule did not include a prohibition on the 
use of AFA vessels as Amendment 80 replacement vessels, described 
NMFS's view of the CRP, and invited the public to comment. The comments 
received by NMFS on Amendment 97 and the proposed rule directly focus 
on whether the final rule should or should not include a prohibition on 
the use of AFA vessels as Amendment 80 replacement vessels and clearly 
demonstrate that the affected public understood the effects of the 
agency's proposed action. The affected public clearly understood that 
in the proposed rule NMFS was asking for comments on whether AFA 
vessels should be allowed or prohibited from being used as Amendment 80 
replacement vessels and the public provided the agency with pertinent 
information leading to the agency's decision to include a prohibition 
on their use in the final rule.
    NMFS also determined that the regulatory prohibition on the use of 
AFA vessels as Amendment 80 replacement vessels in this final rule is 
consistent with the CRP. NMFS stated in the proposed rule its view that 
the

[[Page 59857]]

CRP does not prohibit the use of AFA vessels as Amendment 80 
replacement vessels. At the same time, however, nothing in the CRP 
requires the Council or NMFS to permit the use of AFA vessels as 
Amendment 80 replacement vessels. The regulatory prohibition on the use 
of AFA vessels as Amendment 80 replacement vessels, like other 
Amendment 80 replacement vessel criteria concerning maximum vessel 
length and U.S. Coast Guard safety requirements, does not prevent the 
BSAI non-pollock groundfish catcher/processor subsectors from achieving 
the purpose of the CRP, which is to reduce excess harvesting capacity 
through the development of capacity reduction plans. The prohibition 
does not prevent owners of AFA vessels from participating in BSAI non-
pollock groundfish fisheries as members of the AFA trawl catcher/
processor subsector or prevent the owners of AFA trawl catcher/
processor vessels from participating in a capacity reduction plan under 
the CRP. The prohibition does not prevent Amendment 80 vessel owners 
from replacing qualifying Amendment 80 vessels. Additionally, nothing 
in the CRP overrides the Council's and NMFS's authority under the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act to impose reasonable criteria consistent with the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable law to achieve the fishery 
management goals and objectives of the FMP. Moreover, even if the 
provisions of the CRP could be construed as requiring the use of AFA 
vessels as Amendment 80 replacement vessels, section 303 of Public Law 
111-348 states that ``Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
Secretary of Commerce may promulgate regulations that allow for the 
replacement or rebuilding of a vessel qualified under subsections 
(a)(7) and (g)(1)(A) of section 219 of the [CRP].'' This provision, 
passed into law after the CRP, authorizes NMFS to prohibit by 
regulation the use of AFA vessels as Amendment 80 replacement vessels 
even if the provisions of the CRP require it.
    During the June 2012 Council meeting, NMFS consulted with the 
Council, as required by section 304(b) of the Magnuson-Steven Act, 
regarding the agency's intent to add a regulation to the final rule 
implementing Amendment 97 that would prohibit AFA vessels from 
participating as Amendment 80 replacement vessels. NMFS also urged the 
Council to consider the issue of AFA vessels as Amendment 80 
replacement vessels and develop a policy recommendation on the issue. 
After receiving the agency's report, the Council received comment from 
the public on the proposal to add a regulation to the final rule 
prohibiting use of AFA vessels. Following receipt of public comment, 
the Council discussed NMFS' approach and did not object to the 
inclusion of the prohibition in the Amendment 97 final rule. Some 
Council members stated that a prohibition was not included at the time 
of Council final action on Amendment 97 because at that time the 
Council understood the CRP precluded the use of AFA vessels as 
Amendment 80 replacement vessels. In light of NMFS' request, the 
Council recommended the development of a discussion paper that examines 
the potential impacts of the use of AFA vessels as Amendment 80 
replacement vessels. Specifically, the Council asked NMFS to provide 
(1) rationale for the interpretation that the CRP does not prohibit an 
AFA vessel from replacing an Amendment 80 vessel, (2) a general 
discussion of policy considerations for allowing or not allowing 
replacement of Amendment 80 vessels with AFA vessels and AFA vessels 
with Amendment 80 vessels, (3) a discussion of compliance with the CRP 
should an AFA vessel replace an Amendment 80 vessel, (4) a description 
of the statutory requirements for replacement of an AFA vessel and 
whether an Amendment 80 vessel could replace an AFA vessel, and (5) a 
description of the purpose of sideboards in the AFA and if or how they 
would apply to an AFA vessel that replaced an Amendment 80 vessel. This 
discussion paper, currently scheduled to be presented to the Council at 
its October 2012 meeting, could provide additional information for the 
Council to recommend that the prohibition on the use of AFA vessels as 
Amendment 80 replacement vessels as established in this final rule be 
maintained, modified, or removed. Although NMFS has concluded that the 
best available information currently supports a regulation that 
prohibits AFA vessels from participating as Amendment 80 replacement 
vessels, the Council could choose to act in the future to modify this 
policy based on new information analyzed and reviewed by the Council at 
that time.

Replacement Vessel Length Limits, Maximum Length Overall

    This final rule limits the length overall (LOA) of Amendment 80 
replacement vessels to 295 feet (89.9 m). As described in Section 2.4.5 
of the analysis for this action, the average LOA on an Amendment 80 LLP 
license is 168 feet (51.2 m). Under this action, the LOA of all 
Amendment 80 vessels could increase up to 295 feet (89.9 m). The 
Council determined that a vessel length limit of 295 feet (89.9 m) was 
not likely to constrain the type of fishing operations possible on an 
Amendment 80 replacement vessel, or the economic viability of a 
replacement vessel (see Comments 4 through 7). The maximum vessel 
length is intended to provide equal opportunity for each vessel owner 
to increase or maintain vessel length, to improve the range of 
processed products, and to increase hold capacity onboard the vessel. 
The Council and NMFS recognize that in many cases vessel length is less 
important for increasing harvest rates than for providing a large 
enough vessel to provide adequate hold capacity and thereby increase 
groundfish retention.
    This final rule limits the length of replacement vessels to address 
the potentially adverse competitive effects of new fishing capacity 
entering the fishery relative to the existing fleet. As described in 
detail in Section 2.5.5 of the analysis for this action, the length 
restriction of 295 feet (89.9 m) for replacement vessels is intended to 
limit overall harvesting capacity of the fleet by providing an upper 
boundary on total fleet capacity and encourage general improvements in 
harvesting capacity that any replacement vessel may provide over the 
vessel being replaced. Similarly, replacement vessel length 
restrictions are intended to reduce the potential for a race for fish 
among Amendment 80 participants in the Amendment 80 limited access 
fishery in concert with cooperative quota and sideboard restrictions. 
As noted in Section 2.5.5.2 of the EA/RIR/IRFA for this action, 
Amendment 80 vessels are constrained by quotas in most fisheries in the 
BSAI and by sideboards limits in the GOA. These restrictions will 
remain in place and will continue to constrain the fleet in most 
fisheries.
    Under the final rule, NMFS will modify the maximum LOA (MLOA) on 
Amendment 80 LLP licenses to reflect the regulatory limit of 295 feet 
(89.9 m) LOA for Amendment 80 vessels when an Amendment 80 LLP license 
is transferred to a NMFS-approved Amendment 80 replacement vessel. 
Under regulations at Sec. Sec.  679.4(o) and 679.7(i)(2), an Amendment 
80 vessel is required to use an Amendment 80 LLP while fishing in the 
BSAI or GOA. Section 2.4.5 of the analysis for this action identifies 
the 28 LLP licenses that are currently assigned, or may be eligible to 
be assigned, to Amendment 80 vessels. This final rule removes a 
prohibition on using an Amendment 80 LLP license on a vessel that does 
not

[[Page 59858]]

meet the original qualifying criteria and allows Amendment 80 LLP 
licenses to be used on approved Amendment 80 replacement vessels. In 
most cases, the MLOA on an Amendment 80 LLP license is below 295 feet 
(89.9 m); therefore, NMFS will increase the MLOA on an Amendment 80 LLP 
license when transferred to a NMFS-approved Amendment 80 replacement 
vessel to ensure that the replacement vessel is not constrained by the 
MLOA on an Amendment 80 LLP license. NMFS will not adjust the MLOA of 
an Amendment 80 LLP license until it is transferred to a NMFS-approved 
Amendment 80 replacement vessel.

Assignment of Amendment 80 Quota Share Permits

    This final rule makes three modifications to existing regulations 
concerning the assignment of Amendment 80 QS permits. First, 
regulations at Sec.  679.90(e)(3) are revised to provide an Amendment 
80 vessel owner with the choice of either assigning the Amendment 80 QS 
permit to an Amendment 80 replacement vessel or permanently assigning 
the Amendment 80 QS permit to the LLP license derived from the 
originally qualifying vessel. Second, regulations at Sec.  
679.7(o)(3)(iv) are revised to prohibit replaced or replacement vessels 
from participating in an Amendment 80 fishery unless an Amendment 80 QS 
permit is assigned to that vessel or to the LLP license naming that 
vessel. Third, regulations at Sec.  679.4(o)(4) are added to allow all 
persons holding an Amendment 80 QS permit to replace the vessel 
associated with the Amendment 80 QS permit, including those Amendment 
80 QS permits associated with Amendment 80 vessels that are permanently 
ineligible to re-enter U.S. fisheries. Each of these modifications is 
discussed in detail in the preamble to the proposed rule (see 
ADDRESSES) and is summarized here.
    This final rule provides Amendment 80 vessel owners with a choice 
of either assigning the Amendment 80 QS permit to an Amendment 80 
replacement vessel or permanently affixing the Amendment 80 QS permit 
to the LLP license derived from the originally qualifying Amendment 80 
vessel, as specified in Table 31 to part 679. Under this second option, 
the holder of an Amendment 80 LLP/QS license could then assign the 
license to a vessel authorized to participate in the Amendment 80 
sector. Under existing regulations, the holder of an Amendment 80 QS 
permit that has been assigned to an LLP license cannot uncouple the 
permit and license at a later date. This final rule maintains the 
existing practice of permanently affixing the Amendment 80 QS permit to 
the LLP license.
    Regulations implemented by this final rule allow multiple Amendment 
80 QS permits or Amendment 80 LLP/QS licenses to be used on an 
Amendment 80 replacement vessel. Therefore, one replacement vessel 
could have several Amendment 80 QS permits assigned to that vessel in 
any fishing year. A single vessel with greater hold capacity could 
reduce travel times and operational costs associated with operating two 
or more vessels.
    The final rule addresses two situations where the owner of an 
originally qualifying Amendment 80 vessel and the person holding the 
Amendment 80 QS permit derived from that vessel differ. First, Sec.  
679.7(o)(3)(iv) prohibits replaced or replacement vessels from 
participating in an Amendment 80 fishery unless an Amendment 80 QS 
permit is assigned to that vessel or to the LLP license naming that 
vessel. This provision is intended to eliminate the risk that a person, 
who is not linked to the Amendment 80 fishery other than through 
holding title to a lost Amendment 80 vessel could replace that vessel 
and enter the replacement vessel into the Amendment 80 limited access 
fishery. In making this recommendation, the Council recognized that 
vessel owners could have an incentive to enter a replacement vessel 
into the Amendment 80 sector without having any underlying Amendment 80 
QS permits being assigned to that vessel. Second, the final rule 
contains regulatory provisions that require a vessel participating in 
the Amendment 80 sector to have an Amendment 80 QS permit assigned to 
that vessel or permanently assigned to the LLP license derived from the 
original qualifying vessel. Without such regulation, a person holding 
title to an originally qualifying Amendment 80 vessel, but not holding 
QS, could replace that vessel and become active in the fishery, thereby 
increasing the number of vessels qualified to participate in the 
Amendment 80 sector. Not only would such a situation be inconsistent 
with the CRP and the Court's decision, it would likely pose a risk of 
increased competition for participants in the Amendment 80 limited 
access fishery.
    Finally, this final rule establishes regulations that allow a 
person holding an Amendment 80 QS permit associated with an Amendment 
80 vessel that is permanently ineligible to re-enter U.S. fisheries to 
replace the vessel associated with its QS permit. This provision is 
consistent with the CRP because the maximum number of vessels 
participating in the Amendment 80 sector will not increase given that 
the replaced vessel cannot re-enter U.S. fisheries. Under this final 
rule, the person holding the Amendment 80 QS permit for such a vessel 
is responsible for supplying NMFS with a U.S. Coast Guard or MARAD 
determination of permanent ineligibility when applying to replace the 
ineligible vessel.

Sideboard Limitations for Replaced Vessels

    This action is intended to limit effort in non-Amendment 80 
fisheries by Amendment 80 vessels not assigned to an Amendment 80 QS 
permit or an Amendment 80 LLP/QS license, also referred to as replaced 
Amendment 80 vessels. Therefore, this final rule establishes 
restrictions on the ability of replaced Amendment 80 vessels to 
participate in Federal groundfish fisheries within the BSAI and GOA. 
NMFS will allocate a catch limit of zero metric tons in all BSAI and 
GOA groundfish fisheries to any replaced Amendment 80 vessel. Catch 
limits of zero metric tons will effectively prohibit these vessels from 
conducting directed fishing for groundfish in the BSAI and GOA. The 
Council and NMFS determined that assigning a catch limit of zero metric 
tons to replaced Amendment 80 vessels was the most direct way to limit 
participation by replaced vessels. These regulations are intended to 
prevent replaced Amendment 80 vessels from increasing fishing effort in 
non-catch share fisheries. Additionally, the Council and NMFS 
determined that the potential for consolidation of capital among 
longtime participants in groundfish fisheries might disadvantage or 
have negative impacts on other participants in those fisheries. This 
type of restriction on replaced Amendment 80 vessels is consistent with 
measures contained in other limited access privilege programs in the 
BSAI and GOA, such as the AFA (see the final rule implementing the AFA 
at 67 FR 79692, December 30, 2002), the BSAI Crab Rationalization 
Program (see the final rule implementing the BSAI Crab Rationalization 
Program at 70 FR 10174, March 2, 2005), and the Central GOA Rockfish 
Program (see the final rule implementing the Central GOA Rockfish 
Program at 76 FR 81248, December 27, 2011). NMFS notes that Amendment 
97 and this final rule will not restrict replaced Amendment 80 vessels 
from participating in the BSAI and GOA fisheries as motherships, 
Community Quota Entity floating processors, or stationary floating 
processors that only

[[Page 59859]]

receive deliveries from other vessels for processing. Similarly, this 
action will not restrict replaced Amendment 80 vessels from operating 
in fisheries managed under the jurisdiction of other regional fishery 
management councils.

Amendment 80 Sideboard Catch Limits and Replacement Vessels

    Existing regulatory prohibitions and requirements for monitoring, 
enforcement, permitting, and recordkeeping and reporting that apply to 
all original Amendment 80 vessels will continue to apply to all 
replacement vessels under this final rule. With an exception for the F/
V Golden Fleece, GOA groundfish and halibut prohibited species catch 
(PSC) sideboard measures that apply to original Amendment 80 vessels 
will continue to apply to replacement vessels. As noted in the 
analysis, the Council intended that regulations implementing Amendment 
97 extend these existing management measures and limitations to any 
replacement vessel and treat a replacement vessel the same as the 
original qualifying vessel being replaced. The regulations that apply 
to Amendment 80 vessels are best described in the final rule 
implementing Amendment 80 (September 14, 2007; 72 FR 52668).
    Regulations implementing Amendment 97 continue to recognize the 
special standing that the F/V Golden Fleece has under the Amendment 80 
program. The Council and NMFS determined that the F/V Golden Fleece has 
a unique harvest pattern in the GOA that warranted specific GOA 
sideboard measures under Amendment 80, including an exemption from the 
GOA halibut PSC sideboard limit established by regulations implementing 
Amendment 80. These specific GOA sideboard measures enable the F/V 
Golden Fleece to maintain its historic fishing patterns in certain GOA 
groundfish fisheries. As described in Section 2.4.7 of EA/RIR/IRFA for 
this action, the F/V Golden Fleece has maintained its historic fishing 
patterns, including its halibut PSC rates, since implementation of 
Amendment 80.
    Under this final rule, any replacement vessel for the F/V Golden 
Fleece that is less than or equal to the MLOA of the LLP license that 
was originally assigned to the F/V Golden Fleece (124 feet, 37.8 m) 
will receive the F/V Golden Fleece GOA groundfish sideboard limits and 
the exemption from the GOA halibut PSC sideboard limit implemented 
under Amendment 80. However, if the replacement vessel for the F/V 
Golden Fleece is greater than 124 feet (37.8 m) LOA, then that 
replacement vessel will be subject to the GOA groundfish and halibut 
PSC sideboard limits that apply to other Amendment 80 vessels. Under 
the latter scenario, the replacement vessel will not receive the 
specific F/V Golden Fleece sideboard restrictions and exemptions and 
GOA groundfish and halibut PSC use of the F/V Golden Fleece will be 
added to the existing Amendment 80 GOA sideboards. Section 2.7.4.3 of 
the analysis for this action describes the methods that NMFS will use 
to modify GOA sideboard limits if the F/V Golden Fleece is replaced 
with a vessel greater than 124 feet (37.8 m) LOA. By exempting the F/V 
Golden Fleece from the Amendment 80 GOA groundfish and halibut PSC 
sideboard limits, the Council and NMFS maintained the F/V Golden 
Fleece's ability to continue to harvest its traditional amounts of GOA 
flatfish protected from any adverse impacts resulting from other 
Amendment 80 vessels that could choose to fish in the GOA and use 
halibut PSC. As with other Amendment 80 replacement vessels, NMFS will 
adjust the MLOA of the LLP license that was originally assigned to the 
F/V Golden Fleece to 295 feet (89.9 m) for any vessel replacing the F/V 
Golden Fleece.

Directed Fishing in GOA Flatfish Fisheries

    Under this final rule, any vessel that replaces an Amendment 80 
vessel that is eligible to conduct directed fishing for flatfish in the 
GOA will be allowed to conduct directed fishing in the GOA flatfish 
fisheries. There are eleven Amendment 80 vessels currently authorized 
to conduct directed fishing in the GOA flatfish fisheries. The Council 
and NMFS determined that there is no conservation or management issue 
for GOA flatfish fisheries at this time; therefore, eligible Amendment 
80 vessel owners should not have to choose between vessel safety 
improvements and the ability to continue to harvest GOA flatfish. The 
Council and NMFS recognize the potential for fishing effort to move 
from the Amendment 80 fisheries to the GOA flatfish fisheries. However, 
NMFS and the Council do not anticipate a rapid increase in fishing 
effort in these fisheries due to the impact of replacement vessels and 
could address the issue at a later date should a conservation or 
management problem be predicted.

Safety Requirements

    The Council and NMFS have long sought to improve safety-at-sea and 
have recognized the safety concerns within the Amendment 80 fleet. 
Since 2000, vessel losses and individual fatalities have made the 
Amendment 80 fleet one of the highest-risk Federal fisheries within the 
jurisdiction of the Council. The U.S. Coast Guard considers the 
catcher/processor vessels currently participating in the Amendment 80 
sector as high risk primarily due to the age of the vessels, the areas 
in which they operate, the large number of crew they carry, and their 
relatively high incidence of marine casualty history.
    Under current law, any fish processing vessel that is built or 
undergoes a major conversion after July 27, 1990, is required by 46 
U.S.C. 4503 to meet all survey and classification requirements 
prescribed by the American Bureau of Shipping or another similarly 
qualified classification society. A classification society is a non-
governmental organization that establishes and maintains technical 
standards and rules for the construction (hull, machinery, and other 
vital systems) and operation of ships and offshore structures. The 
classification society will also validate that construction is 
completed according to these standards and will carry out regular 
surveys to ensure continued compliance with the standards. Similarly, 
all vessels 79 feet or greater that are built or converted for use as a 
fish processing vessel after January 1, 1983, are required by 46 U.S.C. 
5102 to have a load line. A load line establishes the maximum draft of 
the ship and the legal limit to which a ship may be loaded for specific 
water types and temperatures. A load line is intended to ensure that a 
ship has sufficient freeboard so that the vessel has the necessary 
stability to operate safely.
    The vast majority of the vessels currently used in the Amendment 80 
sector are not load lined or classed. Due to a variety of concerns, 
classification societies have not recently classed or load lined 
vessels greater than 20 years old, and do not appear likely to do so in 
the foreseeable future. The average age of an Amendment 80 vessel is 32 
years, and 22 of the 24 Amendment 80 vessels currently used in the 
Amendment 80 sector cannot meet the requirements of class and load line 
because of the age of the vessel. Based on this limitation, the U.S. 
Coast Guard and owners of Amendment 80 vessels collaborated to develop 
an alternative program to address the safety risks of this fleet. This 
collaborative effort is known as the Alternative Compliance and Safety 
Agreement (ACSA) program. Program development began in June 2005, and 
implementation was achieved between June 2006 and January 2009. The 
ACSA program is designed to achieve numerous safety, economic, and

[[Page 59860]]

fishery management goals, both directly and indirectly.
    While the U.S. Coast Guard and Amendment 80 vessel owners have seen 
significant improvements in vessel safety as a result of the ACSA 
program, there are limitations to its long-term effectiveness for the 
Amendment 80 fleet. The Council and NMFS recognize that no Amendment 80 
vessels were constructed to meet the requirements of class and load 
line; therefore, there are some inherent limitations in achieving a 
total safety equivalency. Moreover, the National Transportation and 
Safety Board's (NTSB) investigation into the sinking of the F/V Alaska 
Ranger found that ``while the NTSB finds that ACSA has improved the 
safety of the vessels enrolled in the program, the effectiveness of 
ACSA is limited because it is a voluntary program.'' Another key 
limitation to the ACSA program is vessel age. The average age of an 
Amendment 80 vessel is 32 years. U.S. Coast Guard marine inspectors in 
charge of implementing the ACSA program continue to express serious 
concern over the material condition of this aging fleet, in part 
because some studies have shown that an increase in vessel age 
increases the probability of a total loss due to a collision, fire/
explosion, material/equipment failure, capsizing, or sinking.
    NMFS and the Council note that newly constructed fish processing 
vessels have to meet the full suite of modern safety standards--
including all construction, stability, and manning requirements--
intended to ensure such a vessel is inherently safer. Any newly 
constructed Amendment 80 replacement vessel will be required to be 
classed and load lined.
    This final rule requires an Amendment 80 vessel owner applying to 
NMFS to replace a vessel with a newly built or recently converted 
vessel to submit documentation demonstrating that the replacement 
vessel meets U.S. Coast Guard requirements applicable to processing 
vessels operating in the Amendment 80 sector or, if unable to meet 
these requirements and the vessel is currently eligible to participate 
in the Amendment 80 sector, demonstrate that the vessel is enrolled in 
the ACSA program. These provisions are intended to improve safety at 
sea by requiring Amendment 80 replacement vessels to meet safety 
requirements established for fishing vessels in recent years. The 
Council and NMFS recognize that it will likely take decades for all 
Amendment 80 vessels to receive safety upgrades; however, the 
management measures in this rule that require safety certifications 
will promote long-term safety improvements for the Amendment 80 fleet.

Amendment 80 Replacement Vessel Applications

    The final rule adds regulations at Sec.  679.4(o)(4)(ii) to 
establish the process for eligible participants to request that a 
vessel be approved as an Amendment 80 replacement vessel. This final 
rule requires all eligible participants to submit a completed 
application before NMFS will approve a replacement vessel for use in 
the Amendment 80 fisheries. For NMFS to consider an application for 
approval, the applicant must identify the Amendment 80 vessel being 
replaced, identify the replacement vessel, and provide documentation 
demonstrating that the replacement vessel is classed and load lined or, 
if incapable of being classed and load lined, that the vessel is 
enrolled in the ACSA Program.
    Section Sec.  679.4(o)(4)(i)(B) of this final rule requires that 
Amendment 80 replacement vessels be built in the United States, and if 
ever rebuilt, rebuilt in the United States. The applicant must provide 
documentation with an application to NMFS demonstrating that the 
replacement vessel was built, or rebuilt, in the United States. NMFS 
proposed this regulation for Amendment 80 replacement vessels because 
it is consistent with current vessel replacement regulations for trawl 
C/Ps participating in the AFA C/P subsector (see Sec.  
679.4(l)(7)(i)(B)). As noted in Section 2.4.6.2 of the EA/RIR/FRFA 
prepared for this action, the requirement that vessels be built or 
rebuilt in the United States was applicable law for other trawl 
catcher/processors (i.e., AFA C/Ps) operating in the Bering Sea at the 
time the Council took final action on Amendment 97. NMFS also proposed 
this regulation because Section 2.4.9.2 the analysis for Amendment 97 
indicates that Amendment 80 vessels owners will be primarily focused on 
new vessel construction if an owner wants to substantially improve the 
size, horsepower, tonnage, processing capacity, fuel consumption, 
handling, or safety components of an Amendment 80 vessel and be able to 
undertake higher value added processing operations, such as filleting 
or surimi. Generally, statutes governing vessel construction have 
required that new vessels be built, or rebuilt, in the United States 
(e.g., 46 U.S.C. 12102(a), 12151(b)). NMFS determined that this 
requirement is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other 
applicable law.
    The applicant must sign and date an affidavit affirming that all 
information provided on the application is true, correct, and complete 
to the best of his or her knowledge and belief. In addition, an 
applicant holding an Amendment 80 QS permit for a vessel that has been 
lost at sea or is otherwise permanently ineligible to participate in 
Amendment 80 fisheries and who applies to replace that vessel must 
provide evidence to NMFS that ineligibility has been established 
through a U.S. Coast Guard or MARAD determination. Written 
documentation must be provided to establish that an ineligible vessel 
cannot reenter the fishery and that the replacement vessel should be 
permitted to replace the ineligible vessel.
    If NMFS receives a completed application in conformance with 
regulations at Sec.  679.4(o)(4)(ii), NMFS will process that 
application as soon as possible. Once a complete application is 
received by NMFS, the Regional Administrator will approve a vessel that 
is eligible to participate in Federal fisheries as an Amendment 80 
replacement vessel provided that:
     The replacement vessel does not exceed 295 feet (89.9 m) 
LOA;
     The replacement vessel was built in the United States and, 
if ever rebuilt, rebuilt in the United States;
     The replacement vessel is not a permitted AFA vessel;
     The replacement vessel is classed and load lined or, if 
the vessel cannot be classed and load lined, the vessel is enrolled in 
the U.S. Coast Guard ACSA program;
     Only one replacement vessel is named as a replacement for 
any one replaced vessel at a given time; and
     The replacement vessel is not otherwise prohibited from 
participation.
    Based on experience with similar actions, NMFS would likely 
complete the review of an application within 10 calendar days. 
Applicants should consider the potential time lag between submission of 
a completed application and the effective date of NMFS' approval of an 
Amendment 80 replacement vessel. A list of NMFS-approved Amendment 80 
vessels, including replacement vessels, will be publicly available at 
the NMFS Web site at https://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov.
    The evaluation of an application for an Amendment 80 replacement 
vessel will require a decision-making process subject to administrative 
appeal. Applications not meeting the requirements will not be approved. 
If NMFS denies an application, NMFS will issue an initial 
administrative determination (IAD) that indicates the deficiencies in 
the information or evidence submitted in support of the

[[Page 59861]]

application and provides information on how an applicant could appeal 
the IAD. NMFS will use the appeals process described under Sec.  679.43 
for administratively adjudicating Amendment 80 vessel replacement 
decisions. However, rather than appealing an application that is 
denied, eligible contract signatories also could reapply to NMFS at any 
time. The process for replacing vessels under Amendment 97 is designed 
to be flexible and includes no deadlines for submission or limit on the 
number of times applications can be submitted to NMFS.

Amendment 80 QS Transfer Application

    In order to implement Amendment 97, NMFS modifies regulations at 
Sec.  679.90(d), (e), and (f) regarding the allocation, use, and 
transfer of Amendment 80 QS permits. Specifically, NMFS adds provisions 
to the Application to Transfer Amendment 80 QS Permit that allow 
Amendment 80 QS permit holders to transfer an Amendment 80 QS permit to 
an Amendment 80 replacement vessel, transfer an Amendment 80 QS permit 
to a new person, transfer an Amendment 80 QS permit to the Amendment 80 
LLP license assigned to the originally qualifying Amendment 80 vessel 
as noted in Table 31 to part 679, or transfer an Amendment 80 QS permit 
affixed to an Amendment 80 LLP/QS license to an Amendment 80 
replacement vessel. In order to transfer an Amendment 80 QS permit to 
another person, to a vessel approved as an Amendment 80 replacement 
vessel, or to an Amendment 80 LLP license defined in Table 31 to part 
679, a person must submit an application to transfer an Amendment 80 QS 
permit that is approved by NMFS under the regulatory provisions at 
Sec.  679.90(f). A person holding an Amendment 80 LLP/QS license will 
be able to transfer that Amendment 80 LLP/QS license to another person 
under the provisions of Sec.  679.4(k)(7).

United States Maritime Administration (MARAD) Vessel Documentation

    In order to participate in a U.S. fishery, a vessel must obtain a 
certificate of documentation with a fishery endorsement either from the 
U.S. Coast Guard or MARAD (see, e.g., 46 U.S.C. 12102(a), 12113(b)(1), 
and 12151(b)). Vessels greater than 100 feet (30.5 m) LOA must receive 
this documentation through MARAD. Federal law prohibits larger vessels 
from obtaining a fishery endorsement unless specific conditions are 
met. These prohibitions are currently codified at 46 U.S.C. 12113(d).
    Unless an exemption applies, a vessel is not eligible for a fishery 
endorsement if it is greater than 165 feet (50.3 m) in registered 
length; is more than 750 gross registered tons (as measured pursuant to 
46 U.S.C. Chapter 145) or 1,900 gross registered tons (as measured 
pursuant to 46 U.S.C. Chapter 143); or possesses a main propulsion 
engine or engines rated to produce a total of more than 3,000 shaft 
horsepower, excluding auxiliary engines for hydraulic power, electrical 
generation, bow or stern thrusters, or similar purposes. One exemption 
states that a vessel that is prohibited from receiving a fishery 
endorsement because it exceeds one or more of the three size limits 
will be eligible for a fishery endorsement if the owner of such vessel 
demonstrates to MARAD that the regional fishery management council of 
jurisdiction established under section 302(a)(1) of the Magnuson-
Stevens Act has recommended after October 21, 1998, and the Secretary 
has approved, conservation and management measures to allow such vessel 
to be used in fisheries under such council's authority.
    This action permits an Amendment 80 vessel to be longer than 165 
feet (50.3 m) registered length and have greater tonnage and horsepower 
than would otherwise be permitted by 46 U.S.C. 12113(d) and the MARAD 
regulations. The Secretary approved Amendment 97 on June 6, 2012, and 
issues this final rule to implement Amendment 97; therefore, the 
Secretary has approved conservation and management measures that permit 
an Amendment 80 replacement vessel to exceed the specific length, 
tonnage, and horsepower limits specified at 46 U.S.C. 12113(d). 
Secretarial approval of Amendment 97 and publication of implementing 
regulations is intended to provide MARAD with a clear indication that 
the Council and NMFS have recommended that Amendment 80 replacement 
vessels meeting or exceeding the specific length, tonnage, or 
horsepower limits set forth at 46 U.S.C. 12133(d)(1) are eligible to 
receive a fishery endorsement consistent with 46 U.S.C. 12113(d)(2)(B) 
and MARAD regulations at 46 CFR 356.47(c). NMFS will provide MARAD with 
notification of the publication of this rule to document the 
Secretary's approval of measures that permit Amendment 80 replacement 
vessels to exceed these limits.

Changes From the Proposed Rule

    As noted earlier in the preamble, the final rule has one 
substantive change to the regulatory text from the proposed rule (April 
4, 2012; 77 FR 20339). The final rule adds a regulatory provision at 
Sec.  679.4(o)(4)(i) that prohibits the use of AFA vessels as Amendment 
80 replacement vessels. A complete explanation of the provision and 
NMFS's rationale for its inclusion is provided earlier in the preamble 
and also in the responses to comments below.
    In addition, NMFS identified four minor errors in the proposed 
regulatory text that require clarification from proposed to final rule. 
First, the final rule revises proposed regulatory text for Sec. Sec.  
679.4(o)(4)(ii) and 679.90(f) by replacing the phrase ``with all 
applicable fields accurately completed'' with the more precise phrase 
``with all required fields accurately completed.'' Second, the final 
rule revises proposed regulatory text for Sec.  679.7(o)(3)(iv) by 
removing the words ``A vessel to fish'' at the beginning of the 
prohibition and replacing them with the word ``Fish'' to make the 
prohibition more precise and grammatically correct. Third, the final 
rule revises proposed regulatory text for Sec.  679.90(e)(3)(i) by 
replacing the phrase ``or to a vessel approved as an Amendment 80 
replacement vessel approved by NMFS'' with the more precise phrase ``or 
to a vessel approved by NMFS as an Amendment 80 replacement vessel.'' 
Fourth, proposed regulatory text for Sec.  679.92(c)(2)(ii) 
inadvertently referred to ``column A or Table 39'' when the proposed 
regulatory text should have read ``column A of Table 39.'' This final 
rule replaces the word ``or'' with ``of'' for this reference in Sec.  
679.92(c)(2)(ii).

Comments and Responses

    NMFS received 15 comment letters containing 13 unique comments 
during the public comment periods on the Notice of Availability for 
Amendment 97 and the proposed rule to implement Amendment 97. Of the 11 
unique individuals who commented, 10 are representatives of the fishing 
industry and one is a member of the general public. A summary of the 
comments received, grouped by subject matter, and NMFS' responses 
follow.

General Comments

    Comment 1: Most commenters expressed general support for Amendment 
97 and the proposed rule.
    Response: NMFS acknowledges this comment.
    Comment 2: One commenter expressed general dissatisfaction with 
fishery management policy and suggested that Amendment 80 vessels 
should not be permitted to be replaced. Instead, the commenter 
suggested that NMFS should reduce the number of vessels in the 
Amendment 80 fleet and

[[Page 59862]]

require existing vessels meet modern safety standards.
    Response: No changes have been made to the proposed rule in 
response to this comment. The Council considered and rejected an 
alternative that would prevent Amendment 80 vessels from being 
replaced. As described in Section 2.5.1 of the analysis for this 
action, the Council considered Alternative 1a, the No Action 
alternative. This alternative directly contravenes the CRP and the 
court's order in Arctic Sole Seafoods v. Gutierrez, is inconsistent 
with the Council's and NMFS' past practice of allowing replacement 
vessels in catch share programs, including NMFS' authorization of a 
replacement vessel for the originally qualifying Amendment 80 vessel F/
V Arctic Rose, and creates an untenable disagreement between Amendment 
97 as approved by NMFS and implementing regulations. The court in 
Arctic Sole Seafoods v. Gutierrez held that the owner of an originally 
qualifying Amendment 80 vessel may ``replace a lost qualifying vessel 
with a single substitute vessel.'' Without a way to replace vessels, 
there would be a slow reduction of the Amendment 80 fleet through 
attrition. In addition, Alternative 1a was rejected because it would 
fail to meet the specific recommendation of the National Transportation 
Safety Board (NTSB) made following the sinking of the FV Alaska Ranger. 
After that accident, the NTSB recommended that NMFS establish clear 
regulatory provisions that allow vessel replacement for reasons other 
than loss.
    Had the Council recommended Alternative 1a, Amendment 80 vessel 
owners would need to maintain and update originally qualifying vessels. 
As noted in section 2.4.9.1 of the analysis for this action and 
summarized in response to Comment 11, the age of the current fleet 
would prevent even rebuilt vessels (i.e. vessels undergoing a major 
conversion) from being classed and load lined. The Council recommended 
the preferred alternative, in part, to encourage replacement of 
existing vessels with newly constructed vessels that must meet all 
applicable safety laws and could increase the wholesale value of 
fishery products through the use of value-added processing forms. Newer 
vessels are likely to incorporate safer designs and more advanced 
safety measures. In addition, new vessels can be designed to meet 
contemporary international class and load line requirements that would 
allow vessel operators to retain more products than they currently can 
under the U.S. Coast Guard's ACSA program, thereby improving the 
retention and utilization of groundfish.
    Comment 3: Most commenters urged NMFS to implement Amendment 97 in 
an expedited manner and suggested that the delayed Secretarial review 
of Amendment 97 and its implementing regulations has surpassed a 
reasonable standard.
    Response: NMFS is aware that there is significant interest within 
the Amendment 80 sector to begin the process of replacing aging vessels 
and that publication of a final rule implementing Amendment 97 is 
needed to provide regulatory certainty to Amendment 80 vessel owners. 
NMFS has many competing projects and worked expeditiously to begin 
Secretarial review of Amendment 97. NMFS directed limited resources 
away from other high priority projects to expedite the implementation 
of this action. NMFS periodically informed the public and the Council 
of the status of the development of the proposed and final rules and 
other competing projects. Although the Council did not specifically 
request prioritization of this action relative to other NMFS projects, 
NMFS did respond to requests for additional information on a timely 
basis and considered comments from the public and individual Council 
members when establishing priorities. NMFS disagrees with any 
characterization by the commenter that NMFS purposefully delayed 
Secretarial review of Amendment 97 and its implementing regulations.

Use of AFA Vessels as Amendment 80 Vessels

    Comment 4: The final rule should clarify that AFA vessels can be 
used as Amendment 80 vessels. The preamble to the proposed rule 
suggests that only two types of vessels may serve as Amendment 80 
replacement vessels--vessels currently eligible to participate in 
Amendment 80 fisheries and newly constructed vessels. The use of AFA 
vessels as replacement vessels in the Amendment 80 fleet is consistent 
with the goals of the CRP and is consistent with the Council's goals of 
improved vessel safety and increased retention and utilization of 
groundfish by the Amendment 80 fleet. For some participants in the 
Amendment 80 fleet, AFA catcher/processors may be the only practicable 
means to those ends.
    Response: NMFS declines to modify the final rule as the commenter 
requests. Contrary to the clarification the commenter requests, this 
final rule prohibits the use of AFA vessels as Amendment 80 replacement 
vessels. For reasons provided earlier in the preamble, NMFS determined 
that such a prohibition is necessary to carry out management of the 
fisheries in the BSAI consistent with the Council's expectations at the 
time the Council took final action on Amendment 97 and is reasonable 
given the information available at this time concerning the potential 
adverse impacts that could occur within the fishery if AFA vessels are 
permitted to be used as replacement vessels.
    At the June 2012 Council meeting in Kodiak, AK, NFMS consulted with 
the Council about the agency's intent to include a provision 
prohibiting the use of AFA vessels as Amendment 80 replacement vessels 
in the final rule for Amendment 97. After receiving NMFS's report and 
listening to public comments on the report, the Council requested the 
development of a discussion paper analyzing the potential impacts of 
the prohibition on AFA vessels participating as Amendment 80 
replacement vessels and the potential impacts of allowing AFA vessels 
to participate as Amendment 80 replacement vessels. A more detailed 
description of the discussion paper requested by the Council is 
provided earlier in this preamble. The Council noted that it was 
appropriate to have a better understanding of the issues before it 
considered establishing a policy. As explained earlier, while its is 
NMFS's view that the CRP does not prohibit use of AFA vessels as 
Amendment 80 replacement vessels, the goals and purpose of the CRP are 
not impeded by a prohibition on the use of AFA vessels as Amendment 80 
replacement vessels. NMFS expects that the Council, as it considers the 
use of AFA vessel as Amendment 80 replacement vessels, will receive 
information on whether the use of AFA vessels as Amendment 80 
replacement vessels is consistent with the goals of the FMP and the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act, and is a practicable way to achieve those goals.
    NMFS disagrees with the commenter that the proposed rule suggested 
that only two types of vessels may serve as Amendment 80 replacement 
vessels. The proposed rule clearly articulated the criteria that would 
have to be satisfied for a vessel to be approved as an Amendment 80 
replacement vessel and none of these criteria require the replacement 
vessel to be only a newly constructed vessel or a currently 
participating Amendment 80 vessel. The proposed rule acknowledged that 
Amendment 80 vessels owners would likely prefer newly constructed 
vessels over existing vessels and that newly constructed vessels would 
likely meet the regulatory criterion that Amendment

[[Page 59863]]

80 replacement vessels be compliant with U.S. Coast Guard safety 
requirements. Additionally, the proposed rule explained that a 
currently participating Amendment 80 vessel could be used as an 
Amendment 80 replacement vessel as long as the vessel meets the 
criteria, including the criterion for compliance with U.S. Coast Guard 
safety requirements or is enrolled in the ACSA program. Although this 
final rule adds another eligibility criterion for Amendment 80 
replacement vessels, the final rule does not limit the universe of 
eligible Amendment 80 replacement vessels to only currently 
participating Amendment 80 vessels and newly constructed vessels.
    Comment 5: The final rule for this action should clarify that AFA 
vessels are not eligible to replace Amendment 80 vessels. By allowing 
AFA vessels to replace Amendment 80 vessels, NMFS risks investments 
that fishery participants have made in new vessel construction, hyper-
fleet consolidation, excessive shares in these fisheries, and the 
encroachment of AFA participants in non-AFA fisheries. None of these 
potential impacts were analyzed or considered as part of this action. 
NMFS should return to its previous longstanding policy of a clear 
distinction between the AFA and non-AFA vessel sectors in order to 
protect status quo management of groundfish in the North Pacific.
    The intent of Amendment 97 has always been to allow the Amendment 
80 sector to replace vessels, not to facilitate AFA entry into the 
Amendment 80 sector or to disrupt existing fisheries management in the 
North Pacific. NMFS inaccurately assumes that the lack of an 
alternative recommending that NMFS prohibit AFA vessels from replacing 
Amendment 80 vessels is a tacit endorsement by the Council of this 
drastic policy change. The analysis before the Council at the time of 
final action clearly described NMFS' longstanding policy that AFA 
catcher/processors would be ineligible to fish as non-AFA trawl 
catcher/processors and could not replace Amendment 80 vessels. None of 
the alternatives before the Council included a scenario where AFA 
vessels could be used as Amendment 80 replacement vessels; therefore, 
the Council could not have understood the economic implications of this 
policy change. Furthermore, the public was not provided adequate time 
to comment on the use of AFA vessels as replacement vessels.
    Moreover, allowing AFA vessels to be used as Amendment 80 
replacement vessels is controversial, illegal, and contrary to the 
Court Rulings and Federal statutes that govern the AFA and Amendment 80 
fleets (see Arctic Sole Seafoods Inc. v. Gutierrez ; Oceana v. Evans, 
2005; Fishermen Finest v. Locke, 2010; Oceana v. Locke, 2011; Pub. L. 
111-281; and Pub. L. 111-348). The CRP clearly prohibits AFA vessels 
from participating in the Amendment 80 fleet (Pub. L. 108-447). 
Similarly, Congress made it clear that the participants in the AFA 
fleet relinquished all rights to participate in other BSAI sectors in 
exchange for its monopoly in the pollock fishery (see AFA sections 208 
and 211). Congress has consistently demonstrated that AFA and non-AFA 
sectors are mutually exclusive. NMFS lacks the authority to change 
statutory intent; such a change would require Congressional action (see 
16 U.S.C. 1854(a)(3) and (b)). Furthermore, any attempt by NMFS to 
create a rule outside of the rulemaking process (i.e., through preamble 
text only) is invalid under provisions of the APA (see 5 U.S.C. 
706(2)(A) and (C)).
    Response: NMFS has included a provision in this final rule that 
prohibits the use of AFA vessels as Amendment 80 replacement vessels at 
Sec.  679.4(o)(4)(i). For reasons explained earlier, NMFS determined 
that at this time, a provision prohibiting the use of AFA vessels as 
Amendment 80 replacement vessels is necessary to achieve the goals and 
objectives of Amendment 97 and the FMP and is consistent with the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act and applicable law.
    NMFS disagrees with the commenter's assumption that NMFS 
interpreted the absence of an alternative containing a prohibition on 
the use of AFA vessels as Amendment 80 vessels in the Council's motion 
for Amendment 97 as the Council's ``tacit endorsement'' of their use as 
Amendment 80 replacement vessels. In the preamble of the proposed rule, 
NMFS acknowledged that its view of the CRP had changed from that 
provided to the Council and that the Council's motion did not contain a 
specific prohibition on the use of AFA vessels as Amendment 80 
replacement vessels. NMFS did not state that the combination of these 
two factors led NMFS to assume that the Council endorsed the use of AFA 
vessels as Amendment 80 replacement vessels. NMFS was fully aware of 
the impact its new understanding of the CRP had on the Council's 
decision on Amendment 97 and highlighted the issue in order to solicit 
public comment on the matter.
    Although not a basis for the final rule's prohibition on use of AFA 
vessels, NMFS will respond to the commenter's assertion that the CRP 
clearly prohibits AFA vessels from participating in the Amendment 80 
sector. Section 219(a)(7) of the CRP as interpreted by the court sets 
forth the criteria that an owner of a vessel must meet to originally 
qualify for participation in the Amendment 80 sector. When the original 
qualification criteria at section 219(a)(7) have been met, the owner of 
a qualifying vessel may replace that vessel with a vessel that does not 
meet all the original qualification criteria. As explained above, the 
court interpreted the CRP as limiting the universe of owners eligible 
to participate in the BSAI non-pollock groundfish fishery. It 
accomplished this objective by limiting eligibility to a person who 
owns a particular type of vessel with a particular catch history and 
who has a particular license. However, a person who owns an eligible 
vessel is no longer bound by the statutory criteria when replacing that 
vessel. As the court noted, nothing in the CRP indicates that Congress 
was concerned with which particular vessels are used in the BSAI non-
pollock groundfish fishery. Therefore, the owner of a non-AFA trawl 
catcher/processor vessel must satisfy the criteria specified in section 
219(a)(7) of the CRP to originally qualify for the non-AFA trawl 
catcher/processor subsector and the Amendment 80 sector, but the owner 
of such a vessel may replace it with a vessel that might not meet the 
original qualifying criteria of the CRP but is otherwise eligible to 
participate in the BSAI non-pollock groundfish fishery.
    As NMFS stated in the preamble in the proposed rule, its view is 
that nothing in the CRP or the court's decision supports an 
interpretation that the criterion at section 219(a)(7)(A), which 
excludes AFA trawl catcher/processors from the universe of originally 
qualifying Amendment 80 vessels, should extend to an Amendment 80 
replacement vessel. The purpose of the CRP is to promote sustainable 
fisheries management through the removal of excess harvesting capacity 
from the catcher/processor sector of the non-pollock groundfish 
fishery. The use of an AFA vessel as an Amendment 80 replacement vessel 
does not undermine this purpose. The owner of a vessel that is both an 
AFA vessel and an Amendment 80 replacement vessel could still 
participate in a capacity reduction plan developed by one or more of 
the subsectors in which the owner is a member. Additionally, the owner 
of a vessel that is both an AFA

[[Page 59864]]

vessel and an Amendment 80 replacement vessel would continue to be a 
member of a catcher/processor subsector, and therefore eligible to 
participate in the BSAI non-pollock groundfish fishery. Also, the use 
of an AFA vessel as an Amendment 80 vessel would not increase the 
harvesting capacity of either the AFA or the Amendment 80 sectors. 
Generally, if AFA vessels were used as Amendment 80 replacement 
vessels, NMFS expects the total harvesting capacity in the BSAI 
catcher/processor sector would decrease rather than increase as AFA 
vessels replace Amendment 80 vessels and the replaced Amendment 80 
vessel is removed from participation in BSAI and GOA groundfish 
fisheries. This overall reduction in harvesting capacity would be 
consistent with the goals of the CRP. For these reasons, the agency's 
view is that the CRP does not prohibit the use of an AFA vessel as an 
Amendment 80 replacement vessel.
    NMFS agrees that existing AFA regulatory provisions, such as 
sideboards, implemented by the Council and NMFS under section 211 of 
the AFA and the Magnuson-Stevens Act severely limit or possibly prevent 
the use of AFA vessels as Amendment 80 replacement vessels. However, as 
explained in the proposed rule preamble, section 213(c) of the AFA 
provides the Council and NMFS with the authority to supersede certain 
provisions of the AFA, such as sideboards, to mitigate adverse effects 
caused by the AFA. NMFS also acknowledges that section 211(a) of the 
AFA states that the Council shall recommend for approval by NMFS those 
conservation and management measures it determines necessary to protect 
other fisheries under its jurisdiction and the participants in those 
fisheries from adverse impacts caused by the AFA or fishery 
cooperatives in the directed pollock fishery. NMFS has determined, as 
explained earlier, that it has the authority under the Magnuson-Stevens 
Act and other law to implement with this final rule a provision 
prohibiting the use of AFA vessels as Amendment 80 vessels and that 
such a prohibition is necessary and consistent with Amendment 97, the 
FMP, and the Magnuson-Stevens Act at this time. As described in the 
response to Comment 4, the Council has requested a discussion paper 
analyzing the potential impacts of the prohibition on AFA vessels 
participating as Amendment 80 replacement vessels and the potential 
impacts of allowing AFA vessels to participate as Amendment 80 
replacement vessels. After receiving the information provided in this 
discussion paper and other information presented to it through public 
testimony, the Council could choose not to take any action and AFA 
vessels will be prohibited from use as Amendment 80 replacement 
vessels, or the Council could initiate an analysis to consider the 
status quo prohibition and options to allow the use of AFA vessels as 
Amendment 80 replacement vessels.
    NMFS disagrees with the commenter's statements that the agency has 
a longstanding policy prohibiting the use of AFA vessels as Amendment 
80 replacement vessels. In 2007, NMFS had initially interpreted the CRP 
as prohibiting the replacement of vessels that originally qualified for 
the Amendment 80 sector under the criteria established by the CRP with 
a vessel that did not meet the CRP's criteria. NMFS determined that it 
had no discretion under the CRP to permit vessel replacement with non-
qualifying vessels. The court in Arctic Sole Seafoods disagreed with 
NMFS's interpretation, finding the statutory language of the CRP 
ambiguous on the ability to replace qualifying vessels with non-
qualifying vessels, and finding NMFS' prohibition on replacement with 
non-qualifying vessels arbitrary and capricious. Shortly after 
receiving the court's decision in Arctic Sole Seafoods, NMFS expressed 
its view that the statutory language of the CRP prohibited the use of 
AFA vessels as Amendment 80 replacement vessels. This interpretation 
removed the ability of the Council and agency to exercise their 
discretionary authority under the Magnuson-Stevens Act to permit or 
prohibit the use of AFA vessels as Amendment 80 replacement vessels. As 
explained earlier, NMFS re-examined this interpretation and in the 
proposed rule expressed its view that the CRP as interpreted by case 
law did not prohibit the use of AFA vessels. With this final rule, NMFS 
is implementing a policy decision to prohibit the use of AFA vessels as 
Amendment 80 replacement vessels for reasons provided earlier in this 
preamble.
    Finally, the commenter objects to what it perceives as NMFS's 
attempt to implement a statutorily prohibited measure (i.e., permission 
to use AFA vessels as Amendment 80 replacement vessels) through a 
statement in the proposed rule preamble rather than as a proposed 
regulation, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. Although 
NMFS disagrees with the commenter's characterization of the proposed 
rule preamble and law, NMFS believes that the commenter's concern has 
been addressed with the implementation of a regulation that prohibits 
the use of AFA vessels as Amendment 80 vessels in this final rule.

Proposed Catch Limits and Sideboards

    Comment 6: The AFA and non-AFA sectors operate under separate, 
distinct rules and requirements. When compared, it is obvious that one 
vessel cannot simultaneously satisfy conflicting statutory and 
regulatory requirements, such as AFA section 211 sideboards, 
requirements to hold Amendment 80 quota share, AFA and Amendment 80 
sector GOA sideboards and PSC limits, and Amendment 85 Pacific cod 
allocations between non-AFA and AFA subsectors.
    Amendment 97 was not intended to be a vehicle to reconsider 
longstanding sideboard provisions applicable to the AFA and Amendment 
80 sectors. NMFS should not encourage the Council to reconsider sector 
qualifications, allocations, sideboards, harvest limits, and other 
operational restrictions in order to facilitate AFA vessels entering 
into the non-AFA sector. Such a regulatory change would be counter-
productive for Amendment 80 vessel replacement and would destabilize 
status quo management of groundfish fisheries in the North Pacific.
    Response: As explained earlier in the preamble, this final rule 
prohibits the use of AFA vessels as Amendment 80 replacement vessels. 
Therefore, the basis for the commenter's concerns as to whether AFA 
vessels could be used effectively as Amendment 80 replacement vessels 
(given all of the harvest requirements and restrictions highlighted by 
the commenter) has been removed.
    NMFS disagrees with the commenter's suggestion that NMFS should not 
engage the Council on the issues surrounding the eligibility of AFA 
vessels as replacement vessels, including the applicability of AFA and 
Amendment 80 sideboard limits. The range of public comments raised in 
response to this issue demonstrates that this subject is of substantial 
interest. The Council is the appropriate body to address issues 
concerning fishery policy. By raising this issue to the Council, NMFS 
is making the Council aware of the public's interest. In addition, the 
Council is specifically authorized to recommend modifications to the 
AFA as appropriate. As NMFS noted in the preamble to the proposed rule 
for this action, section 213(c) of the AFA authorizes the Council and 
NMFS to supersede the AFA sideboards and other harvest limits 
established by the AFA to mitigate adverse effects in fisheries caused 
by the AFA at any time

[[Page 59865]]

it deems necessary. Although the potential impacts of AFA vessels also 
participating in Amendment 80 fisheries as Amendment 80 replacement 
vessels was not discussed in the analysis for Amendment 97, the Council 
could choose to analyze the impacts of alternative actions and decide 
if the impacts warrant additional management measures to mitigate 
adverse effects. NFMS consulted with the Council in June 2012 and 
described NMFS' rationale for and intent to prohibit AFA vessels from 
participation as Amendment 80 replacement vessels. During the 
consultation at the June 2012 Council meeting, NMFS urged the Council 
to engage stakeholders in a discussion of the potential impacts to 
inform the Council on future action. AFA C/P vessel owners may ask the 
Council and NMFS to examine changes to existing sideboard limits for 
AFA catcher/processors that would accommodate the use of an AFA 
catcher/processor as an Amendment 80 replacement vessel.
    As noted in the response to Comment 4, the Council requested a 
discussion paper analyzing the potential impacts of the prohibition on 
AFA vessels participating as Amendment 80 replacement vessels and the 
potential impacts of allowing AFA vessels to participate as Amendment 
80 replacement vessels. Thus, the discussion paper will focus on the 
impacts of permitting versus the impacts of prohibiting verses AFA 
vessels use as Amendment 80 replacement vessels. As part of this 
discussion paper, the Council requested that staff describe the 
possible impacts of catch limits, including sideboards, should the 
Council recommend that AFA vessels become eligible to participate in 
Amendment 80 fisheries as replacement vessels.
    Comment 7: NMFS' interpretation of the applicability of sideboards 
to an AFA vessel replacing an Amendment 80 vessel and subsequently 
participating in non-AFA fisheries is not correct. NMFS should 
interpret sideboard regulations as it did for Amendment 80 vessels 
harvesting species allocated to, and on behalf of, Community 
Development Quota (CDQ) groups. In the CDQ case, NMFS determined that 
AFA sideboards did not extend to CDQ fisheries because of the language 
and purpose of the AFA. Extending sideboards to fisheries that are no 
longer subject to increased competition from the AFA sector (e.g., 
Amendment 80 fisheries) is not necessary because these sideboards would 
not protect participants in non-AFA fisheries. Furthermore, extending 
these catch limits is inconsistent with Congressional intent, as 
established by the AFA. NMFS should establish sideboards consistent 
with existing regulations and the plain language text of AFA section 
211(b)(2) that requires AFA sideboards to apply only to AFA vessels 
that are pursuing the ``harvest available.'' Thus, AFA sideboards would 
not extend to the operations of an AFA catcher/processor serving as an 
Amendment 80 replacement vessel; when such a vessel is operating in an 
Amendment 80 fishery, Amendment 80 TAC is ''not available'' to the AFA 
catcher/processor sector (see AFA section 211(b)(2)(A)). Similar logic 
would also apply to PSC reserved for the Amendment 80 sector that is 
``unavailable'' to the AFA catcher/processor sector (see AFA section 
211(b)(2)(A)). Therefore, AFA catcher/processors operating in Amendment 
80 fisheries should not have to operate under AFA sideboards because 
the sideboards would not accrue to the benefit of the AFA sector. In 
both cases the allocations are unavailable to the AFA sector.
    Moreover, if AFA sideboards are applied to AFA vessels 
participating in Amendment 80 fisheries, NMFS would preclude the use of 
AFA vessels as replacements for vessels in the Amendment 80 fleet. 
Congress did not intend to limit the vessels available as replacement 
vessels to the participants in the Amendment 80 sector. Such a limit is 
not consistent with the language and purpose of the AFA or the CRP 
legislation, which created the Amendment 80 sector 6 years later. As 
the court observed in Arctic Sole Seafoods v. Gutierrez, ``there is 
nothing in the [CRP legislation] that indicates Congress was concerned 
with which particular vessels are used in the [Amendment 80] fishery'' 
(see 622 F. Supp. 2d 1050, 1060 n.3).
    Response: In the proposed rule, NMFS explained that AFA sideboards 
would apply to any AFA vessel used as an Amendment 80 replacement 
vessel. Recognizing that these limitations may effectively preclude the 
use of AFA vessels as Amendment 80 replacement vessels, NMFS identified 
the need for the Council to examine the issue. However, for reasons 
explained earlier, NMFS has included a provision in this final rule 
that prohibits the use of AFA vessels as Amendment 80 replacement 
vessels. Because this final rule prohibits the use of AFA vessels as 
Amendment 80 replacement vessels, the question of whether AFA 
sideboards apply to AFA vessels operating as Amendment 80 replacement 
vessels is no longer applicable.
    The commenter also states that application of AFA sideboards is 
inconsistent with the language and purpose of the AFA and the CRP 
legislation because the sideboards would preclude the use of AFA 
vessels as replacements for vessels in the Amendment 80 fleet and 
Congress did not intend to limit the vessels available as replacement 
vessels to the participants in the Amendment 80 sector. NMFS has 
previously explained that the Council and NMFS have the authority to 
impose requirements for Amendment 80 replacement vessels. As explained 
earlier, NMFS has asked the Council to examine the issue of whether AFA 
vessels should be permitted to be used as Amendment 80 replacement 
vessels, and the Council is scheduled to review a discussion paper 
examining this issue at its October 2012 meeting. The discussion paper 
will examine the impacts of AFA sideboards.
    Comment 8: The proposed regulations do not go far enough to 
restrict the use of replaced Amendment 80 vessels in other fisheries. 
NMFS should implement stronger regulations similar to those prohibiting 
replaced AFA vessels from participating in any fishery in the EEZ. 
Specifically, the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010 limits the use 
of replaced AFA vessels by stating that a replaced AFA vessel will no 
longer be eligible for a fishery endorsement, unless the vessel in turn 
replaces another AFA vessel. Allowing less-safe replaced Amendment 80 
vessels to participate in other fisheries contradicts National Standard 
10, to promote safety of human life at sea.
    Response: As noted in section 2.5.9 of the analysis for this 
action, the Council and NMFS are limited in their ability to address 
the status of replaced vessels. NMFS does not have general authority to 
remove a fishery endorsement issued by the U.S. Coast Guard under 46 
U.S.C. 12108. NMFS has been able to permanently remove a vessel's 
ability to receive a fishery endorsement only when granted specific 
statutory authority by Congress. For example, NMFS removed a vessel's 
fishing endorsement under the Crab Buyback Program under the authority 
of the Consolidated Appropriations of 2001 (Pub L. 106-555, sec. 144) 
and has been granted the authority to do so for replaced AFA vessels 
(see 46 U.S.C. 12113). Without specific authority from Congress to 
remove a fishery endorsement from a replaced Amendment 80 vessel, NMFS 
and the Council had to consider other options to limit the potential 
use of replaced vessels outside of its jurisdiction.

[[Page 59866]]

    At final action, the Council recommended that NMFS implement a 
sideboard limit of zero metric tons of groundfish as defined in the 
BSAI and GOA FMPs for replaced Amendment 80 vessels. A groundfish 
sideboard limit of zero for replaced Amendment 80 vessels will prohibit 
replaced vessels from conducting directed fishing for federally managed 
groundfish in the BSAI and GOA and should prevent the harvesting 
capacity of a replaced vessel from displacing existing fishery 
participants or accelerating the race for fish in non-catch share 
fisheries managed by the Council. This provision is consistent with 
similar measures taken to limit access to vessels participating in 
other limited access privilege program fisheries in the BSAI.
    NMFS disagrees that failing to prevent replaced vessels from the 
Amendment 80 fleet from participating in any EEZ fishery is 
inconsistent with National Standard 10 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 
which requires that the Secretary shall, to the extent practicable, 
promote safety of human life at sea. The Secretary has determined that 
Amendment 97 and this final rule are consistent with all of the 
national standards and U.S. Coast Guard safety regulations. As 
described in the proposed rule, U.S. Coast Guard regulations require 
various safety standards based on the type of processing conducted by 
the vessel, the area in which the vessel operates, and the number of 
crew it carries. For example, a replaced Amendment 80 vessel could 
potentially operate safely in a lower-risk fishery, outside of the 
North Pacific. The U.S. Coast Guard has found that fatality rates and 
causal factors are highly differentiated among vessel type, fishery 
gear, species being fished, and geographic region. NMFS notes that 
replaced Amendment 80 vessels will be required to meet the applicable 
fishing vessel safety regulations to operate in other Federal fisheries 
outside of the North Pacific region.
    Comment 9: The proposed rule at page 20344 is misleading and needs 
to be clarified. NMFS needs to clarify that the provisions of the Coast 
Guard Authorization Act of 2010 concerning ``replaced'' AFA vessels are 
not implicated when a permitted AFA vessel is ``replacing'' a vessel in 
another fishery.
    Response: NMFS disagrees that the proposed rule was misleading. 
However, NMFS clarifies that the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010 
(Pub. L. 111-281, Title VI, Sec. 602) prohibits replaced AFA vessels 
from participation in any fishery other than as a replacement vessel in 
the AFA fleet and agrees with the commenter that these provisions do 
not apply to AFA vessels that are legally participating in AFA 
fisheries and are also used to replace a vessel in another fishery.

MLOA of 295 Feet (89.9 m) for All Replacement Vessels

    Comment 10: The proposed rule incorrectly states that the longest 
MLOA in the Amendment 80 fleet is 295 feet (89.9 m). One vessel, the F/
V Seafreeze Alaska, currently is assigned an LLP license with an MLOA 
of 296 feet (90.2 m). As proposed, the regulations would reduce the 
MLOA of the LLP license associated with this vessel to 295 feet (89.9 
m). The administrative record does not support reducing the MLOA of the 
LLP license associated with the F/V Seafreeze Alaska and NMFS should 
not reduce the MLOA for the LLP license associated with this vessel. 
One commenter suggested that NMFS establish a 295 feet (89.9 m) MLOA 
for all Amendment 80 LLP licenses that have an existing MLOA of less 
than 295 feet (89.9 m) when the license is assigned to a replacement 
vessel, while another commenter suggested that NMFS should allow 
Amendment 80 replacement vessels to have an MLOA of 296 feet (90.2 m) 
rather than the proposed MLOA of 295 feet (89.9 m).
    Response: NMFS agrees that the proposed rule preamble on page 20340 
incorrectly states that the longest MLOA on an Amendment 80 LLP license 
is 295 feet (89.9 m). While this sentence is incorrect, the information 
provided in Tables 1 and 28 and in section 2.4.5 of the analysis for 
this action accurately state that the MLOA of the LLP license 
associated with the F/V Seafreeze Alaska is 296 feet (90.2 m).
    The F/V Seafreeze Alaska is named on an LLP with an MLOA of 296 
feet (90.2 m); however, the F/V Seafreeze Alaska is 295 feet (89.9 m) 
LOA as noted on the Federal Fisheries Permit assigned to that vessel. 
Tables 1 and 28 of the analysis note both the 296 feet (90.2 m) MLOA of 
the LLP license currently associated with the F/V Seafreeze Alaska and 
the 295-foot LOA (89.9 m) for the F/V Seafreeze Alaska. Upon initial 
issuance of an LLP license, each license holder was assigned an MLOA 
based on the length of the qualifying vessel on a specific date, as 
described in the final rule for the LLP program (63 FR 52642; October 
1, 1998). During the development of Amendment 97, NMFS recommended that 
the Council take similar action when considering vessel length 
restrictions as part of a vessel replacement action. Specifically, NMFS 
proposed that the Council establish the LOA of an originally qualifying 
Amendment 80 vessel as the benchmark for determining the maximum LOA of 
any replacement vessel under any length limit alternatives considered 
by the Council. NMFS used the LOA in its Federal fishing permit 
database as the basis for determining the LOA for all qualifying 
vessels, and those data are presumed to be correct. Therefore, under 
the final rule, the MLOA on the LLP license associated with the F/V 
Seafreeze Alaska will be adjusted to 295 feet (89.9 m) when NMFS 
approves a replacement vessel for it.
    NMFS disagrees that the administrative record does not support the 
Council's recommendation that all LLP licenses associated with 
Amendment 80 replacement vessels be assigned a 295-foot (89.9 m) MLOA. 
Section 2.5.5 of the EA/RIR/IRFA for this action analyzes several 
options for length restrictions based on the LOA of Amendment 80 
vessels. In addition to the 295-feet (89.9 m) MLOA restriction, the 
Council considered an option to limit the length of the replacement 
vessel to the LOA of the original qualifying vessel, an option to limit 
the LOA of a replacement vessel based on the MLOA of the LLP license 
used on the replacement vessel, and two suboptions that would modify 
the LOA of a vessel, not the MLOA of an LLP license.
    At final action on Amendment 97, the Council selected the option 
that would limit the length overall of an Amendment 80 replacement 
vessel to 295 feet (89.9 m) LOA. This measure allows each replacement 
vessel to be as long as the largest vessel currently operating in the 
Amendment 80 fleet. In selecting the limit of 295 feet (89.9 m) LOA for 
replacement vessels, the Council reviewed the LOAs of participating 
Amendment 80 vessels and determined that replacement vessels should not 
be longer than the longest vessel currently participating in the 
sector; in other words, no replacement vessel should exceed the LOA of 
the longest currently participating vessel. For the reasons provided in 
the preamble of the proposed rule, the Council determined that the LOA 
of the longest vessel currently participating in the sector would 
accommodate all of the safety, retention and utilization goals the 
Council wanted to achieve with replacement vessels while providing an 
upper bound on total fleet capacity. Therefore the Council determined 
and NMFS agrees that a limit of 295 feet (89.9 m) on the LOA for 
replacement vessels struck the appropriate balance

[[Page 59867]]

between long enough without being too long.
    The Council rejected the option that would have established no 
limit on the length of replacement vessels. As described in detail in 
Section 2.4.5 of the analysis for this action, the restriction of 295 
feet (89.9 m) on the length of replacement vessels is intended to limit 
overall harvesting capacity of the fleet, reduce the potential for a 
race for fish in non-catch share fisheries managed by the Council, and 
encourage general improvements in harvesting capacity that any newly 
constructed vessel would provide over the vessel being replaced, while 
providing an upper boundary on total fleet capacity.
    The Council has frequently recommended limits on vessel length as a 
proxy for controlling fishery effort. Although length is only one 
measure of a vessel's fishing capacity, it is a metric that is commonly 
used, considered to be a reasonable indicator of total harvest 
capacity, and is relatively easily measured and enforced compared to 
other vessel measurements (e.g., vessel hold capacity). The 295 feet 
(89.9 m) LOA limit implemented by this final rule is intended to 
improve the Council's and NMFS' ability to analyze and predict the 
maximum fishery impacts of the Amendment 80 fleet in future actions.
    To ensure that the maximum size limit recommended by the Council 
can be implemented, NMFS is establishing an MLOA of 295 feet (89.9 m) 
for all Amendment 80 LLP licenses that are assigned to an Amendment 80 
replacement vessel (see revised definition for Maximum LOA (MLOA) at 
Sec.  679.2). This provision is intended to ensure that Amendment 80 
LLP licenses accurately reflect the MLOA of the replacement vessel.
    Although a vessel that is 296 feet LOA would not be approved as an 
Amendment 80 replacement vessel, the owner of the F/V Seafreeze Alaska 
is likely to benefit from a newly constructed vessel at its current LOA 
of 295 feet (89.9 m). The analysis for this action indicates that 
vessels with the longest LOA are likely to benefit from vessel 
replacement under Amendment 97. Generally, all Amendment 80 vessels 
larger than 250 feet (76.2 m) LOA are long enough to incorporate a meal 
plant, fillet lines, or other improvements in vessel processing; 
however, any newly constructed, or newly rebuilt, replacement vessel is 
likely to have improved operational capabilities relative to existing 
vessels of the same length. A new vessel can incorporate improved hull 
design, processing plant construction, engines, electronics, fishing 
gear, and other advancements in marine design that improve efficiency 
and vessel safety.
    NMFS made no change to the final rule in response to this comment.
    Comment 11: NMFS should clarify that rebuilt vessels are eligible 
as Amendment 80 replacement vessels under this action, including the 
regulatory provisions that establish an MLOA of 295 feet (89.9 m) for 
all replacement vessels.
    Response: NMFS agrees that rebuilt vessels, which are those vessels 
that have undergone a major conversion, are eligible to apply to NMFS 
for approval as an Amendment 80 replacement vessel. However, as 
described earlier, 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 U.S. Coast Guard ACSA program. Vessels 
must also have been rebuilt in the United States. Section 2.4.9 of the 
analysis for this action considered the impacts of using rebuilt 
Amendment 80 vessels for use as Amendment 80 replacement vessels. It is 
NMFS's understanding based on information provided by the U.S. Coast 
Guard that an Amendment 80 vessel owner who undertakes a major 
conversion of an Amendment 80 vessel to increase its size, address 
safety concerns, or otherwise improve its efficiency will no longer be 
eligible for the U.S. Coast Guard's ACSA certification program. 
Therefore, a rebuilt Amendment 80 vessel must be classed and load lined 
in order to meet the vessel safety requirements for Amendment 80 
replacement vessels established by this rule.
    All commercial fishing vessels that carry more than 16 people on 
board and are built or have undergone a major conversion must meet 
contemporary safety requirements. As fish processing vessels, newly 
rebuilt Amendment 80 vessels are required to be classed (see 46 CFR 
part 28, subpart D) and load lined (see 46 U.S.C. 5102). The analysis 
notes that age restrictions imposed by the classification societies 
preclude the vast majority of the Amendment 80 fleet from eligibility 
for certification as either load lined or classed. Given this 
information and the information presented in Section 2.4.9.1 of the 
analysis, NMFS has serious concerns as to whether a rebuilt Amendment 
80 vessel could be classed and load lined. NMFS will not approve a 
vessel as an Amendment 80 replacement vessel if the vessel is not 
classed and load lined and is not enrolled in the U.S. Coast Guard ACSA 
program. Should a vessel owner choose to rebuild an existing Amendment 
80 vessel, that vessel owner must apply to NMFS and NMFS must approve 
the vessel as an Amendment 80 replacement vessel prior to it being used 
as an Amendment 80 replacement vessel and prior to receiving an MLOA of 
295 feet (89.9 m) on the LLP license associated with that vessel.

Comments on FMP Text

    Comment 12: Under Amendment 97, Section 3.7.5.7.1 of the FMP will 
appropriately include the phrase ``or their replacement'' after 
references to ``non-AFA trawl catcher/processors.'' The phrase ``or 
their replacement'' also should be included after references to ``non-
AFA trawl catcher/processors'' in the Executive Summary and Section 
3.7.5.4.2.
    Response: NMFS acknowledges this comment; however, the changes to 
the FMP text suggested by the commenter are not required. The Executive 
Summary section of the FMP is intended to provide a general description 
of the FMP and its contents, and does not require additional details 
that are included later in the FMP. Similarly, Section 3.7.5.4.2 of the 
FMP opens with an introductory sentence that lists 11 issues that are 
described in more detail later in that section. Although NMFS agrees 
that the introductory sentence for Section 3.7.5.4.2 of the FMP does 
not include the phrase ``or their replacement,'' the new paragraph 11 
to Section 3.7.5.4.2 provides the details necessary to derive an 
allocation formula for Amendment 80 replacement vessels. As noted 
earlier in the preamble, the Secretary determined that Amendment 97 as 
submitted by the Council was consistent with the FMP, the Magnuson-
Stevens Act, and other applicable law and approved it on June 6, 2012.
    Comment 13: Under Amendment 97, Section 3.7.5.7 of the FMP 
amendment will describe the sideboards applicable to replaced Amendment 
80 vessels as ``Each non-AFA trawl catcher/processor named on an LLP 
license endorsed for participation in the Amendment 80 sector, but not 
assigned QS in an Amendment 80 fishery would have a sideboard limit of 
zero in all BSAI and GOA groundfish fisheries.'' As proposed, the FMP 
text would not include Amendment 80 vessels that are no longer named on 
Amendment 80 QS permits, Amendment 80 LLP licenses, or Amendment 80 
LLP/QS licenses, and therefore appears to be materially different than 
the sideboard regulation proposed at Sec.  679.92(e). Thus, NMFS should 
replace the text of the FMP

[[Page 59868]]

amendment with the more precise regulatory text in the proposed rule.
    Response: NMFS determined that the text proposed by the commenter 
is not necessary in the FMP as the amendment language is sufficiently 
clear. The FMP text quoted by the commenter adequately describes the 
sideboards that will apply to replaced Amendment 80 vessels. 
Regulations implementing an FMP amendment often contain additional 
descriptive language to provide additional regulatory clarity and 
technical continuity.

Classification

    The Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS, determined that this final 
rule is necessary for the conservation and management of the groundfish 
fisheries off Alaska and that it is consistent with the Magnuson-
Stevens Act 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 (FRFA), 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 this 
final rule serve as the small entity compliance guide. This action does 
not require any additional compliance from small entities that is not 
described in the preamble. Copies of this final rule are available from 
NMFS at the following Web site: https://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov.

Executive Order 12866

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

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    This FRFA incorporates the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 
(IRFA), a summary of the significant issues raised by the public 
comments, NMFS' responses to those comments, and a summary of the 
analyses completed to support the action. NMFS published the proposed 
rule on April 4, 2012 (77 FR 20339), with comments invited through May 
4, 2012. An IRFA was prepared and summarized in the ``Classification'' 
section of the preamble to the proposed rule. The description of this 
action, its purpose, and its legal basis are described in the preamble 
to the proposed rule and are not repeated here. The FRFA describes the 
impacts on small entities, which are defined in the IRFA for this 
action and not repeated here. Analytical requirements for the FRFA are 
described in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), sections 604(a)(1) 
through (5), and summarized below.
    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. 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;
    4. 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
    5. 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.
    The ``universe'' of entities to be considered in a FRFA generally 
includes only those small entities that can reasonably be expected to 
be directly regulated by the final rule. If the effects of the rule 
fall primarily on a distinct segment of the industry, or portion 
thereof (e.g., user group, gear type, geographic area), that segment 
would be considered the universe for purposes of this analysis.
    In preparing a FRFA, an agency may provide either a quantifiable or 
numerical description of the effects of a rule (and alternatives to the 
rule), or more general descriptive statements, if quantification is not 
practicable or reliable.

Need for and Objectives of This Final Rule

    This final rule is necessary to amend the FMP and Federal 
regulations related to the Amendment 80 program to establish a process 
for the owners of Amendment 80 vessels to replace eligible trawl 
catcher/processor vessels. This final rule is intended to rectify the 
currently untenable disagreement among the FMP, implementing 
regulations, and the court order in Arctic Sole Seafoods v. Gutierrez, 
622 F. Supp. 2d 1050 (W.D. Wash 2008). Currently, the FMP and 
implementing regulations prohibit the replacement of any originally 
qualifying Amendment 80 vessel; however, the court order vacated the 
specific regulatory provisions that preclude vessel replacement. This 
action is intended to provide a clear regulatory framework and the 
certainty that vessel operators are likely to need in order to replace 
vessels.

Summary of Significant Issues Raised During Public Comment

    No comments were received that raised significant issues in 
response to the IRFA specifically; therefore, no changes were made to 
the rule as a result of comments on the IRFA. However, several comments 
were received on the economic impacts of Amendment 97 on different 
sectors of the industry. Specific comments addressed the potential 
economic impacts of allowing AFA vessels to be used as amendment 80 
replacement vessels (see Comments 4 through 7). For a summary of the 
comments received, refer to the section above titled Comments and 
Responses.

Number and Description of Small Entities Regulated by the Final Rule

    NMFS estimated the number of small versus large entities by 
matching the gross earnings from all fisheries of record for 2009 with 
the vessels, the known ownership of those vessels, and the known 
affiliations of those vessels in the BSAI or GOA groundfish fisheries 
for that year. NMFS has specific information on the ownership of 
vessels and the affiliations that exist based on data provided by the 
Amendment 80 sector, as well as a review of ownership data 
independently available to NMFS from Federal fishing permit and LLP 
applications. The vessels with a common ownership linkage, and 
therefore affiliation, are reported in Table 2 in Section 2 of the 
analysis. In addition, those vessels that are assigned to an Amendment 
80 cooperative and receive an exclusive harvest privilege are 
categorized as a large entities for the purpose of the RFA, under the 
principles of affiliation, due to their participation in a harvesting 
cooperative.

[[Page 59869]]

    NMFS knows that as many as 28 non-AFA trawl catcher/processors 
could be active in the Amendment 80 fishery. Those persons who apply 
for and receive Amendment 80 QS are eligible to fish in the Amendment 
80 sector, and those QS holders will be directly regulated by the final 
rule. Vessels that are assigned Amendment 80 QS and that are eligible 
to fish in the Amendment 80 sector are commonly known as Amendment 80 
vessels. Currently, there are 27 Amendment 80 vessels that will be 
directly regulated based on this action. Additionally, one vessel 
owner, who could be eligible for the Amendment 80 program and could 
apply for Amendment 80 QS, has not applied to NFMS to participate in 
this sector. Therefore, this vessel will not be directly regulated by 
the final rule unless and until the owner is approved to participate in 
the Amendment 80 sector and is assigned Amendment 80 QS. Based on the 
known affiliations and ownership of the Amendment 80 vessels, all but 
one of the Amendment 80 vessel owners are categorized as large entities 
for the purpose of the RFA. Thus, this analysis estimates that only one 
small entity would be directly regulated by the final rule. It is 
possible that this one small entity could be linked by company 
affiliation to a large entity, which may then qualify that entity as a 
large entity, but complete information is not available to determine 
any such linkages.

Recordkeeping and Reporting

    Recordkeeping and reporting requirements are not expected to change 
as a result of the final rule. The action under consideration requires 
no additional reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance 
requirements that differ from the status quo.

Description of Significant Alternatives to the Final Rule

    The suite of potential actions included three alternatives. A 
detailed description of these alternatives is provided in Section 2 of 
the analysis. Alternative 1 is the ``no action'' alternative. This 
alternative does not address the Federal Court Order to provide for 
replacement of Amendment 80 vessels and is not consistent with the 
purpose and need of this action. Alternative 2 would allow an Amendment 
80 vessel owner to replace a vessel under conditions of loss or 
permanent ineligibility. This alternative meets the minimum 
requirements of the Court Order but was not selected because it may 
limit a vessel's ability to add modern safety upgrades. It also carried 
a substantially higher economic cost than alternative 3 to achieve the 
same regulatory outcome for the fishing sector, causing it to fail the 
requirement that it minimize the adverse economic impacts on directly 
regulated small entities. The lack of any quantitative data makes it 
impossible to rigorously assess the relative differences in expected 
economic benefits among the alternatives.
    Alternative 3, the preferred alternative of the Council and NMFS, 
would allow a vessel owner to replace a vessel for any purpose. Based 
upon the best available scientific data and information, none of the 
alternatives to the final action accomplish the stated objectives of 
the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable statutes, while 
minimizing any significant adverse economic impact on small entities, 
beyond those achieved under the final rule. Compared with the other 
alternatives and options, the associated suite of options composing the 
preferred alternative best minimizes adverse economic impacts on small 
entities, while providing the most benefits to the directly regulated 
small entities. The preferred alternative provides greater economic 
benefits for participants than alternative 2 by allowing participants 
to replace a vessel for any reason, and at any time, thus enabling the 
vessel to receive economic benefits from the fishery and Amendment 80 
QS while incorporating safety and efficiency upgrades encouraged by the 
preferred alternative. The lack of any quantitative data makes it 
impossible to rigorously assess the relative differences in expected 
economic impacts among the alternatives. The Council chose to recommend 
the preferred alternative because it best meets the goals of this 
action and minimizes the potential negative impacts to directly 
regulated small entities by providing the same opportunities for each 
vessel owner to improve the range of processed products and increase 
hold capacity onboard by establishing regulations to limit the maximum 
size of replacement vessels.

Collection-of-Information Requirements

    This rule contains collection-of-information requirements subject 
to the Paperwork Reduction Act and which have been approved by the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Public reporting burden 
estimates per response for these requirements are listed by OMB control 
number.

OMB Control No. 0648-0334

    Public reporting burden is estimated to average per response: 1 
hour for Application for Transfer, License Limitation Program 
Groundfish/Crab License.

OMB Control No. 0648-0565

    Public reporting burden is estimated to average per response: 2 
hours for Amendment 80 QS permit application; 2 hours for Amendment 80 
QS permit transfer application; and 2 hours for Amendment 80 Vessel 
Replacement application.
    Public reporting burden estimates include 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 these burden 
estimates or any other aspect of this data collection, including 
suggestions for reducing the burden, to NMFS (see ADDRESSES) and by 
email to OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov, or fax to 202-395-7285.
    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is 
required to respond to, and no person shall be subject to 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.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 679

    Alaska, Fisheries, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: September 25, 2012.
Alan D. Risenhoover,
Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, performing the functions and 
duties of the Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, 
National Marine Fisheries Service.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS amends 50 CFR part 
679 as follows:

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

0
1. The authority citation for 50 CFR part 679 continues to read as 
follows:

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


0
2. In Sec.  679.2:
0
a. Revise the definition of ``Amendment 80 LLP/QS license'' and the 
definition for ``Amendment 80 vessel;'' and
0
b. Add a new definition of ``Amendment 80 replacement vessel'' in 
alphabetical order, and add paragraph (2)(iv) to the definition of 
``Maximum LOA (MLOA)''.
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

[[Page 59870]]

Sec.  679.2  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Amendment 80 LLP/QS license means an LLP license originally 
assigned to an originally qualifying Amendment 80 vessel with an 
Amendment 80 QS permit assigned to that LLP license.
* * * * *
    Amendment 80 replacement vessel means a vessel approved by NMFS in 
accordance with Sec.  679.4(o)(4).
* * * * *
    Amendment 80 vessel means any vessel that:
    (1) Is listed in Column A of Table 31 to this part with the 
corresponding USCG Documentation Number listed in Column B of Table 31 
to this part; or
    (2) Is designated on an Amendment 80 QS permit, Amendment 80 LLP/QS 
license, or Amendment 80 LLP license and is approved by NMFS in 
accordance with Sec.  679.4(o)(4) as an Amendment 80 replacement 
vessel.
* * * * *
    Maximum LOA (MLOA) means:
    (2) * * *
    (iv) The MLOA of an Amendment 80 LLP license or Amendment 80 LLP/QS 
license will be permanently changed to 295 ft. (89.9 m) when an 
Amendment 80 replacement vessel is listed on the license following the 
approval of a license transfer application described at Sec.  
679.4(k)(7).
* * * * *

0
3. In Sec.  679.4:
0
a. Revise paragraphs (k)(7)(vii), (o)(1)(ii), and (o)(1)(v); and
0
b. Add paragraphs (k)(3)(i)(C), (o)(1)(vii), (o)(4), and (o)(5).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  679.4  Permits.

* * * * *
    (k) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (C) Modification of the MLOA on an Amendment 80 LLP license or an 
Amendment 80 LLP/QS license. The MLOA designated on an Amendment 80 LLP 
license or an Amendment 80 LLP/QS license will be 295 ft. (89.9 m) if 
an Amendment 80 replacement vessel is designated on the license 
following the approval of a license transfer request under paragraph 
(k)(7) of this section.
* * * * *
    (7) * * *
    (vii) Request to change the designated vessel. (A) A request to 
change the vessel designated on an LLP groundfish or crab species 
license must be made on a transfer application. If this request is 
approved and made separately from a license transfer, it will count 
towards the annual limit on voluntary transfers specified in paragraph 
(k)(7)(vi) of this section.
    (B) A request to change the vessel designated on an Amendment 80 
LLP license or an Amendment 80 LLP/QS license must be made on an 
Application for Amendment 80 Replacement Vessel in accordance with 
Sec.  679.4(o)(4)(ii). The MLOA modification specified at paragraph 
(k)(3)(i)(C) of this section will be effective when a complete 
application is submitted to NMFS in accordance with paragraph (k)(7) of 
this section, and the application is approved by the Regional 
Administrator.
* * * * *
    (o) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii) An Amendment 80 QS permit is assigned to the owner of an 
Amendment 80 vessel that gave rise to that permit under the provisions 
of Sec.  679.90(b), or its replacement under Sec.  679.4(o)(4), unless 
the Amendment 80 QS permit is assigned to the holder of an LLP license 
originally assigned to an Amendment 80 vessel under the provisions of 
Sec.  679.90(d) or Sec.  679.90(e).
* * * * *
    (v) Amendment 80 QS units assigned to an Amendment 80 QS permit are 
non-severable from that Amendment 80 QS permit and if transferred, the 
Amendment 80 QS permit must be transferred in its entirety to another 
person under the provisions of Sec.  679.90(d) or Sec.  679.90(e).
* * * * *
    (vii) The owner of an Amendment 80 vessel must designate the 
Amendment 80 vessel on an Amendment 80 QS permit and on an Amendment 80 
LLP license, or designate the Amendment 80 vessel on the Amendment 80 
LLP/QS license to use that Amendment 80 vessel in an Amendment 80 
fishery.
* * * * *
    (4) Amendment 80 Replacement Vessel. (i) The owner of an Amendment 
80 vessel may replace such vessel for any purpose. All Federal fishery 
regulations applicable to the replaced vessel apply to the replacement 
vessel, except as described at Sec.  679.92(d)(2)(ii) if applicable. A 
vessel that replaces an Amendment 80 vessel will be approved by the 
Regional Administrator as an Amendment 80 vessel following the 
submission and approval of a completed application for an Amendment 80 
Replacement Vessel, provided that:
    (A) The replacement vessel does not exceed 295 ft. (89.9 m) LOA;
    (B) The replacement vessel was built in the United States and, if 
ever rebuilt, rebuilt in the United States;
    (C) The applicant provides documentation that the replacement 
vessel complies with U.S. Coast Guard safety requirements applicable to 
processing vessels operating in the Amendment 80 sector or, if unable 
to provide such documentation, the applicant provides documentation 
that the replacement vessel meets the requirements of the U.S. Coast 
Guard's Alternative Compliance and Safety Agreement; and
    (D) The replacement vessel is not a vessel listed at section 
208(e)(1) through (20) of the American Fisheries Act or permitted under 
Sec.  679.4(l)(2)(i), or an AFA catcher vessel permitted under Sec.  
679.4(l)(3)(i).
    (ii) Application for Amendment 80 Replacement Vessel. A person who 
wishes to replace an Amendment 80 vessel must submit to NMFS a complete 
Application for Amendment 80 Replacement Vessel. An application must 
contain the information specified on the form, with all required fields 
accurately completed and all required documentation attached. This 
application must be submitted to NMFS using the methods described on 
the application.
    (5) Application evaluations and appeals--(i) Initial evaluation. 
The Regional Administrator will evaluate an application for an 
Amendment 80 replacement vessel submitted in accordance with paragraph 
(o)(4) of this section. If the vessel listed in the application does 
not meet the requirements for an Amendment 80 replacement vessel at 
Sec.  679.4(o)(4), NMFS will not approve the application. An applicant 
who submits claims based on inconsistent information or fails to submit 
the information specified in the application for an Amendment 80 
replacement vessel will be provided a single 30-day evidentiary period 
to submit evidence to establish that the vessel meets the requirements 
to be an Amendment 80 replacement vessel. The burden is on the 
applicant to establish that the vessel meets the criteria to become a 
replacement vessel.
    (ii) Additional information and evidence. The Regional 
Administrator will evaluate the additional information or evidence to 
support an application for Amendment 80 replacement vessel submitted 
within the 30-day evidentiary period. If the Regional Administrator 
determines that the additional information or evidence meets the 
applicant's burden of proving that the vessel meets the requirements to 
become an Amendment 80 Replacement Vessel, the application will be 
approved. However, if the Regional Administrator determines that the

[[Page 59871]]

vessel does not meet the requirements to become an Amendment 80 
Replacement Vessel, the applicant will be notified by an initial 
administrative determination (IAD) that the application for replacement 
vessel 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 vessel meets the requirements for an 
Amendment 80 replacement 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 his or her 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 Sec.  679.43.

0
4. In Sec.  679.7, add paragraph (o)(3)(iv) to read as follows:


Sec.  679.7  Prohibitions.

* * * * *
    (o) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (iv) Fish in an Amendment 80 fishery without an Amendment 80 QS 
permit or Amendment 80 LLP/QS license assigned to that vessel.
* * * * *

0
5. In Sec.  679.90, revise paragraphs (d)(2)(ii), (e)(1)(ii), (e)(3), 
and (f) to read as follows:


Sec.  679.90  Allocation, use, and transfer of Amendment 80 QS permits.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (ii) Amendment 80 LLP/QS license. NMFS will issue an Amendment 80 
QS permit as an endorsement on an Amendment 80 LLP license to the 
holder of an LLP license originally assigned to an Amendment 80 vessel 
listed in Column A of Table 31 to this part, under the provisions of 
Sec.  679.4(k)(7), if that person submitted a timely and complete 
Application for Amendment 80 QS that was approved by NMFS under 
paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this section.
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii) If an Amendment 80 QS permit is assigned to an Amendment 80 
LLP license originally assigned to an Amendment 80 vessel, that 
Amendment 80 LLP license is designated as an Amendment 80 LLP/QS 
license. A person may not separate the Amendment 80 QS permit from that 
Amendment 80 LLP/QS license.
* * * * *
    (3) Transfers of Amendment 80 QS permits. (i) A person holding an 
Amendment 80 QS permit assigned to an Amendment 80 vessel may transfer 
that Amendment 80 QS permit to another person, to the LLP license 
originally assigned to an Amendment 80 vessel, or to a vessel approved 
by NMFS as an Amendment 80 replacement vessel in accordance with Sec.  
679.4(o)(4) by submitting an Application to Transfer an Amendment 80 QS 
permit that is approved by NMFS under the provisions of paragraph (f) 
of this section.
    (ii) A person holding an Amendment 80 LLP license that is 
designated as an Amendment 80 LLP/QS license may designate a vessel 
approved as an Amendment 80 replacement vessel by submitting an 
Application For Transfer License Limitation Program Groundfish/Crab 
License that is approved by NMFS under the provisions of paragraph (f) 
of this section.
* * * * *
    (f) Application to Transfer Amendment 80 QS. A person holding an 
Amendment 80 QS permit who wishes to transfer the Amendment 80 QS 
permit to the LLP license originally assigned to the Amendment 80 
vessel, or transfer the Amendment 80 QS permit to another person, or 
transfer the Amendment 80 QS permit to an Amendment 80 replacement 
vessel must submit to NMFS a complete Application to Transfer an 
Amendment 80 QS permit. The holder of an Amendment 80 LLP/QS license 
may designate the replacement vessel on the LLP license by using the 
Application for Transfer License Limitation Program Groundfish/Crab 
License. An application must contain the information specified on the 
form, with all required fields accurately completed and all required 
documentation attached. This application must be submitted to NMFS 
using the methods described on the application.

0
6. In Sec.  679.92:
0
a. Revise paragraph (c); and
0
b. Add paragraphs (d)(2) and (e).
    The additions and revisions read as follows:


Sec.  679.92  Amendment 80 Program use caps and sideboard limits.

* * * * *
    (c) Sideboard restrictions applicable to Amendment 80 vessels 
directed fishing for flatfish in the GOA--(1) Originally Qualifying 
Amendment 80 Vessels. An Amendment 80 vessel listed in column A of 
Table 39 to this part may be used to fish in the directed arrowtooth 
flounder, deep-water flatfish, flathead sole, rex sole, and shallow-
water flatfish fisheries in the GOA and in adjacent waters open by the 
State of Alaska for which it adopts a Federal fishing season.
    (2) Amendment 80 Replacement Vessels. (i) Any vessel that NMFS 
approves to replace an Amendment 80 vessel listed in column A of Table 
39 to this part may be used to fish in the directed arrowtooth 
flounder, deep-water flatfish, flathead sole, rex sole, and shallow-
water flatfish fisheries in the GOA and in adjacent waters open by the 
State of Alaska for which it adopts a Federal fishing season.
    (ii) Any vessel that NMFS subsequently approves to replace an 
Amendment 80 replacement vessel that replaced an Amendment 80 vessel 
listed in column A of Table 39 to this part may be used to fish in the 
directed arrowtooth flounder, deep-water flatfish, flathead sole, rex 
sole, and shallow-water flatfish fisheries in the GOA and in adjacent 
waters open by the State of Alaska for which it adopts a Federal 
fishing season.
    (d) * * *
    (2) Sideboard restrictions applicable to any vessel replacing the 
GOLDEN FLEECE. (i) If the vessel replacing the GOLDEN FLEECE is of an 
LOA less than or equal to 124 ft. (38.1 m) (the MLOA of the LLP license 
that was originally assigned to the GOLDEN FLEECE, LLG 2524), then the 
sideboard provisions at Sec.  679.92(c) and (d)(1) apply.
    (ii) If the vessel replacing the GOLDEN FLEECE is greater than 124 
ft. (38.1 m) (the MLOA of the LLP license that was originally assigned 
to the GOLDEN FLEECE, LLG 2524), then the sideboard provisions at Sec.  
679.92(b) and (c) apply.
    (e) Sideboard restrictions applicable to Amendment 80 vessel not 
assigned an Amendment 80 QS permit, Amendment 80 LLP license, or 
Amendment 80 LLP/QS license. All Amendment 80 vessels not designated 
on:
    (1) An Amendment 80 QS permit and an Amendment 80 LLP license; or

[[Page 59872]]

    (2) An Amendment 80 LLP/QS license will be allocated a catch limit 
of 0 mt in the BSAI and GOA.

[FR Doc. 2012-24100 Filed 9-27-12; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P