Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area; American Fisheries Act; Amendment 106, 34696-34714 [2014-14012]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 117 (Wednesday, June 18, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 34696-34714]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-14012]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 679

[Docket No. 130530519-4476-01]
RIN 0648-BD35


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

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

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.

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

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

DATES: Submit comments on or before August 4, 2014.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2013-0097, 
by any one of the following methods:
     Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public 
comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking portal. Go to https://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2013-0097, click the 
``Comment Now!'' icon, complete the required fields, and enter or 
attach your comments.
     Mail: Address written comments to Glenn Merrill, Assistant 
Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region 
NMFS, Attn: Ellen Sebastian. Mail comments to P. O. Box 21668, Juneau, 
AK 99802.
    Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other 
address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, 
may not be considered. All comments received are a part of the public 
record and will generally be posted for public viewing on https://www.regulations.gov without change. All Personal Identifying 
Information (for example, name, address) voluntarily submitted by the 
commenter will be publicly accessible. Do not submit Confidential 
Business Information or otherwise sensitive or protected information. 
NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter N/A in the required fields, 
if you wish to remain anonymous). Attachments to electronic comments 
will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF 
file formats only.
    Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other 
aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this 
proposed rule may be submitted to NMFS at the above address; emailed to 
OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov; or faxed to 202-395-7285.
    Electronic copies of Amendment 106 to the FMP, the Regulatory 
Impact Review/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (Analysis), and 
the Categorical Exclusion prepared for this action may be obtained from 
https://www.regulations.gov or from the Alaska Region Web site at https://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov.
    Additional analyses prepared for the AFA include the Final 
Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for American Fisheries Act 
Amendments 61/61/13/8 (AFA FEIS) (February 2002); the FEIS for 
Essential Fish Habitat Identification and Conservation in Alaska (April 
2005); the Alaska Groundfish Harvest Specifications--FEIS (January 
2007); and the Bering Sea Chinook Salmon Bycatch Management--FEIS 
(December 2009). These analyses are available on the NMFS Alaska Region 
Web site at https://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/analyses/default.htm.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS manages the groundfish fisheries of the 
BSAI in the Exclusive Economic Zone off Alaska under the BSAI FMP. The 
North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) prepared, and the 
Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) approved, the BSAI FMP pursuant to 
the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-
Stevens Act) and other applicable laws. General regulations that 
pertain to U.S. fisheries appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600. 
Regulations implementing the BSAI FMP appear at 50 CFR part 679. Unless 
noted otherwise, all references to regulations in this proposed rule 
are to regulations that are contained in Title 50 of the CFR.

Terms Used in the Preamble

    This document uses several terms to help the reader understand the 
provisions of the proposed rule. The definitions are provided here for 
ease of reference.
    The term ``AFA vessel'' means a vessel that is named on an AFA 
catcher vessel permit, an AFA catcher/processor permit, or an AFA 
mothership permit and is authorized by that permit to participate in 
the directed pollock fishery in the Bering Sea. The proposed rule would 
add this definition to Sec.  679.2.
    The terms ``directed pollock fishery'' or ``AFA fishery'' mean 
directed fishing for pollock in the Bering Sea subarea. ``Directed 
fishing'' is defined in regulations at Sec.  679.2.
    The term ``original AFA'' means the provisions of the AFA as 
adopted on October 21, 1998. The original AFA was contained in Division 
C, Title II--Fisheries, Subtitles I and II, within the Omnibus 
Appropriations Act FY 1999, Public Law 105-277.
    The terms ``amended AFA'' or ``AFA'' mean the American Fisheries 
Act as amended since 1998, including the amendments to the AFA made by 
section 602 of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010 (Coast Guard 
Act), Public Law. 111-281.
    The term ``original AFA vessel'' means a vessel that became 
eligible to participate in the directed pollock fishery under the terms 
of the original AFA.

[[Page 34697]]

Background

    The Background portion of this proposed rule contains four 
sections. Section I describes the relevant statutes and regulations 
governing the AFA fishery prior to the Coast Guard Act. Section II 
describes the changes to the AFA made by the Coast Guard Act. Section 
III describes the history of Council action to address the changes made 
to the AFA by the Coast Guard Act. Section IV describes the need for 
this action.

I. Summary of the Original AFA

    On October 21, 1998, the President signed into law the original 
AFA. The original AFA, as adopted in 1998, is available on the NMFS 
Alaska Region Web site: https://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/sustainablefisheries/afa/afa1998.pdf.
    Subtitle I of the original AFA, entitled Fishery Endorsements, 
comprised sections 201 to 204. Subtitle I made changes generally in the 
issuance of Federal fishery endorsements by the United States Coast 
Guard (Coast Guard). These changes were initially codified at 46 U.S.C. 
12102 and are now found at 46 U.S.C. 12113. Subtitle II of the original 
AFA, entitled Bering Sea Pollock Fishery, comprised sections 205 
through 213. Subtitle II changed the management of the directed pollock 
fishery in the BSAI. Subtitle II of the original AFA is codified as a 
statutory note to section 301 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 U.S.C.A. 
1851 note). The following paragraphs briefly describe the provisions in 
Subtitle I and Subtitle II.

Subtitle I of the Original AFA: Fishery Endorsements

    Before the original AFA, a vessel that was five net tons or greater 
had to have a Federal certificate of documentation with a Federal 
fishery endorsement to operate as a fishing vessel in U.S. waters (46 
U.S.C. 12102(a) (1997); 46 U.S.C. 12108 (1997)). For a vessel to 
receive a Federal fishery endorsement, the owner of the vessel had to 
be a U.S. citizen or, if the owner of the vessel was a corporation, the 
controlling interest in the corporation had to be owned by individuals 
who were citizens of the United States (46 U.S.C. 12102(c) (1997)).
    Subtitle I of the original AFA made two changes in the issuance of 
Federal fishery endorsements. First, it tightened the requirements for 
a non-individual entity, such as a corporation, to show that U.S. 
citizens held a controlling interest in the entity. Subtitle I of the 
original AFA established a standard of at least 75 percent ownership by 
U.S. citizens at each tier of ownership of the entity and in the 
aggregate. For vessels 100 feet or greater in registered length, 
Subtitle I of the original AFA tasked the Maritime Administration 
(MARAD), an agency in the Department of Transportation, with making the 
citizenship determinations for vessel ownership. For vessels less than 
100 feet in registered length, the Coast Guard retained the 
responsibility to make the citizenship determinations for vessel 
ownership. Subtitle I of the original AFA corrected what Congress 
believed were mistakes in, and misinterpretations of, the 1987 
Commercial Fishing Industry Anti-Reflagging Act. These mistakes and 
misinterpretations had resulted in the exemption of most vessels from 
the U.S. citizenship requirements (AFA FEIS at pages 1-3, see 
ADDRESSES).
    Second, Subtitle I of the original AFA prohibited the issuance of 
Federal fishery endorsements to any new fishing vessels that exceeded 
165 feet in registered length, that exceeded 750 gross registered tons, 
or that had an engine or engines capable of producing more than 3,000 
shaft horsepower (46 U.S.C. 12113). MARAD regulations refer to vessels 
that exceed any of these statutory criteria of 165 feet registered 
length, 750 gross registered tons, or 3,000 shaft horsepower, as 
``large vessels'' (46 CFR 356.47). If a vessel was a large vessel, the 
vessel could not receive a Federal fishery endorsement unless (1) the 
vessel had a certificate of documentation with a fishery endorsement 
that was effective on September 25, 1997; or (2) a regional fishery 
management council recommended and the Secretary of Commerce approved 
conservation and management measures in accordance with the Magnuson-
Stevens Act to allow participation by large vessels in fisheries under 
the council's authority.
    All original AFA vessels had fishery endorsements as of September 
25, 1997. Therefore, all original AFA vessels were eligible to receive 
a Federal fishery endorsement even if the vessel was a ``large 
vessel.''

Subtitle II of the Original AFA: Bering Sea Pollock Fishery

    Subtitle II of the original AFA made sweeping changes in the 
management of the directed pollock fishery in the BSAI and changed, to 
a lesser extent, the management of other groundfish fisheries off 
Alaska. In 2002, NMFS implemented the AFA through the following 
amendments to fishery management plans: Amendment 61 to the BSAI FMP; 
Amendment 61 to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf 
of Alaska (GOA FMP); Amendment 13 to the Fishery Management Plan for 
Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands King and Tanner Crabs; and Amendment 8 to 
the Fishery Management Plan for the Scallop Fishery off Alaska. NMFS 
analyzed the impact of the original AFA and the related fishery 
management plan amendments in the AFA FEIS (see ADDRESSES). NMFS 
published final regulations that fully implemented the original AFA on 
December 30, 2002 (67 FR 79692).
    Subtitle II of the original AFA made five major changes in the 
management of pollock and other groundfish fisheries off Alaska: (1) 
Sector allocations, (2) determination of eligible vessels and 
processors, (3) the allowance of cooperatives; (4) protection measures 
for other fisheries, and (5) catch weighing and monitoring 
requirements. These changes are described in detail in the AFA FEIS and 
are summarized briefly here.
     Sector allocations. The original AFA in section 206 
established sector allocations for the BSAI pollock fishery. The 
original AFA allocated 10 percent of the BSAI pollock total allowable 
catch (TAC) to the Western Alaska Community Development Quota (CDQ) 
Program. After allowance for incidental catch of pollock in other 
fisheries, the original AFA allocated the remaining TAC as follows: a 
50 percent allocation to catcher vessels harvesting pollock for 
processing by the inshore sector; a 40 percent allocation to catcher 
vessels and catcher/processors harvesting pollock for processing by the 
catcher/processor sector; and a 10 percent allocation to catcher 
vessels harvesting pollock for processing by the mothership sector.
     Eligible vessels and processors. The original AFA in 
section 208 established which vessels and which processors were 
eligible to participate in the mothership sector, the catcher/processor 
sector, and the inshore sector. The mothership sector and the catcher/
processor sector together make up the offshore component of the Bering 
Sea pollock fishery. A mothership may only receive and process fish; a 
catcher/processor may process and harvest fish; a catcher vessel may 
only harvest fish (section 205 of original AFA).
    NMFS initially issued AFA permits to 3 mothership vessels, 21 
catcher/processor vessels, and 112 catcher vessels. The three AFA 
mothership vessels were listed by name as eligible vessels in the AFA. 
Of the 21 AFA catcher/processors, 20 vessels were listed catcher/
processors, which means they were listed by name as eligible in

[[Page 34698]]

section 208(e)(1) through (20) of the original AFA. One catcher/
processor, although not listed, was eligible because it met the 
eligibility criteria in section 208(e)(21) of the original AFA. Of the 
112 original AFA catcher vessels, 7 vessels were eligible to deliver to 
the catcher/processor sector only; 6 vessels were eligible to deliver 
to the mothership sector only; 85 vessels were eligible to deliver to 
the inshore sector only; and 14 vessels were dual-qualified to deliver 
in the inshore and mothership sectors (Analysis, Section 1.9.1).
     Cooperatives. The original AFA in section 210 allowed the 
formation of fishery cooperatives in each AFA sector. Under a fishery 
cooperative, the members of a cooperative agree to divide up the 
pollock that the cooperative members may harvest or process in a manner 
that seeks to eliminate ``a wasteful race for fish'' and to allow 
participants ``to maximize productivity'' (AFA FEIS, Executive Summary 
at page 2, see ADDRESSES). The original AFA in section 210(b) 
specifically regulated the formation of inshore cooperatives for 
catcher vessels. A catcher vessel with an inshore endorsement has a 
choice to participate in the open access sector and deliver pollock to 
any AFA inshore processor, or to contribute its catch history to a 
cooperative and deliver at least 90 percent of its pollock catch to the 
processor associated with the cooperative (AFA section 210(b); 50 CFR 
679.4(l)(6)).
    Seven inshore cooperatives have formed (Analysis, Section 1.9.1). 
Almost all AFA inshore catcher vessels harvest and deliver pollock 
through a cooperative, rather than in open access. From 2005 to 2014, 
except for 2010, all inshore catcher vessels fished through a 
cooperative (Allocations, NMFS Alaska Region Web site, https://alaskafisheries.noaa/gov/sustainablefisheries/afa). In 2010, only two 
inshore catcher vessels fished in open access (Permits, NMFS Alaska 
Region Web site, https://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/ram/afa.htm).
     Limits on AFA vessels in other fisheries. The original AFA 
in section 211 provided protections for other fisheries from spillover 
effects from the allocation of exclusive harvesting privileges in the 
Bering Sea pollock fishery and the formation of fishery cooperatives. 
With respect to fisheries outside of Alaska, section 211(b)(5) of the 
original AFA prohibited AFA catcher/processors and AFA motherships from 
participating in any fishery outside of Alaska except the Pacific 
whiting fishery, unless a regional fishery management council 
specifically authorized such participation.
    With regard to fishing in the Exclusive Economic Zone off Alaska, 
the original AFA provided for limits on AFA vessels that have become 
known as sideboards. Sideboards are limits on the amount of a species, 
other than Bering Sea pollock, that AFA vessels may harvest. The 
original AFA in section 211(b) established sideboard limits in the BSAI 
and GOA for the 20 catcher/processors that were listed in the original 
AFA as eligible to participate in the directed pollock fishery. The 
original AFA in section 211(a) directed the Council to recommend 
additional sideboard protections. The Council did recommend, and the 
Secretary approved, a comprehensive set of sideboard regulations on AFA 
vessels for species other than Bering Sea pollock (see regulations at 
Sec.  679.64).
    The regulations subject most AFA catcher vessels to sideboard 
limits (Sec.  679.4). NMFS establishes the sideboard limits, by 
species, each year through the annual harvest specification process. 
(See, e.g., Final 2013 and 2014 Harvest Specifications for Groundfish 
in the GOA, Tables 19 and 20, 78 FR 13162, February 26, 2013). If a 
sideboard limit for a species is too low to support a directed fishery, 
NMFS closes the fishery to directed fishing by AFA-sideboarded catcher 
vessels (Sec.  679.20(d)(iii) and (iv)). This frequently occurs. For 
example, in 2013 and 2014, except for pollock and Pacific cod in 
Western and Central GOA, NMFS closed directed fishing by AFA-
sideboarded catcher vessels for almost all other groundfish species in 
the GOA (Final 2013 and 2014 Harvest Specifications for Groundfish in 
the GOA, Tables 30 and 31, 78 FR 13162, February 26, 2013).
    The regulations exempt some AFA catcher vessels from sideboard 
limits for BSAI Pacific cod and for GOA groundfish, if the vessels meet 
specified criteria (Sec.  679.64(b)(2)). Out of 112 AFA catcher 
vessels, 10 vessels are exempt from BSAI Pacific cod sideboards and 16 
vessels are exempt from GOA sideboards (Analysis, Section 1.9.1). These 
vessels are known as ``sideboard-exempt'' vessels. Even though exempt 
from AFA sideboards, the AFA sideboard-exempt vessels are bound by TACs 
for BSAI Pacific cod and GOA groundfish species and are subject to 
additional constraints on fishing for these species (Analysis, Section 
1.9.1).
     Catch weighing and monitoring requirements. The original 
AFA in section 211(b)(6) imposed catch weighing and monitoring 
requirements on the 20 catcher/processors that were listed in the 
original AFA as eligible to harvest the directed pollock allocation of 
the catcher/processor sector. The original AFA required the listed 
catcher/processors to carry two NMFS observers at all times and to 
weigh all catch on NMFS-approved scales. Through regulations, the 
Council and NMFS developed catch measurement and observer requirements 
for all AFA catcher/processors, for AFA motherships, and for AFA 
catcher vessels (see regulations at Sec.  679.51 and Sec.  679.63).

Original AFA Provisions on Replacing, Rebuilding and Removing AFA 
Vessels

    The original AFA explicitly prohibited the replacement of original 
AFA vessels except under conditions specified in section 208(g) of the 
original AFA. The most stringent restriction in section 208(g) was that 
an owner of an AFA vessel could only replace an AFA vessel in the event 
of an ``actual total loss or a constructive total loss'' of the 
original AFA vessel. The original AFA did not specifically define total 
loss or constructive loss, but the terms are commonly used in maritime 
insurance. A total loss usually means that the vessel sinks, or is 
otherwise destroyed, and is physically lost. A constructive loss 
usually means that a vessel is so damaged that the cost of repair is 
greater than the value of the vessel. Thus, under the original AFA, a 
vessel owner could not replace an original AFA vessel until the AFA 
vessel sunk or was so damaged that it could not economically be 
repaired. An AFA vessel owner could not replace an original AFA vessel 
with another vessel simply because the vessel owner wanted a vessel 
that was safer, more fuel-efficient, or more operationally efficient 
than the owner's current vessel in any way.
    Further, if an original AFA vessel owner did lose an original AFA 
vessel, section 208(g) of the original AFA limited the length, tonnage, 
and horsepower of the replacement vessel. If the original AFA vessel 
was a large vessel, the replacement vessel could not exceed the length, 
tonnage, or horsepower of the original AFA vessel. If the original AFA 
vessel was less than any of the statutory thresholds, the replacement 
vessel could exceed the length, weight, or horsepower of the original 
AFA vessel by 10 percent, but only up to the statutory thresholds for 
large vessels.
    Between 1998 and passage of the Coast Guard Act in 2010, NMFS 
approved the replacement of four original AFA vessels under the 
standards in the original AFA. All

[[Page 34699]]

replaced vessels were catcher vessels. Two replacement vessels were new 
to the AFA fishery. Two replacement vessels already were original AFA 
vessels that replaced other original AFA vessels.
    The original AFA had no explicit provisions on rebuilding original 
AFA vessels. The original AFA did not provide a mechanism for a vessel 
owner to remove an original AFA vessel from the directed pollock 
fishery.

Effect of License Limitation Program (LLP) on Rebuilding and Replacing 
Original AFA Vessels

    To participate in the directed pollock fishery in the Bering Sea, 
an AFA vessel must not only have an AFA permit, but must also be named 
on an LLP license with a Bering Sea area endorsement. There are two 
sources for this requirement. First, section 208(a)(2) of the original 
AFA specifically stated that to be eligible to participate in the 
directed pollock fishery, a vessel had to be eligible to harvest 
pollock under the LLP. Second, pollock is a license limitation 
groundfish (Sec.  679.2) and to conduct directed fishing for any 
species of license limitation groundfish in the Bering Sea, a vessel 
must be named on an LLP groundfish license with a Bering Sea area 
endorsement (Sec.  679.4(k)(1)(i)).
    Further, AFA vessels harvest pollock with trawl gear. Every LLP 
license has a gear designation of either trawl gear, trawl/non-trawl 
gear, or non-trawl gear (Sec.  679.4(k)(1)(iv)). The first two gear 
designations--trawl and trawl/non-trawl--authorize the vessel named on 
the LLP license to use trawl gear. Therefore, to effectively fish for 
pollock, an AFA vessel must have an LLP license with a gear designation 
for trawl gear or trawl/non-trawl gear.
    The requirement that an AFA vessel have an LLP license limits the 
ability of owners of AFA vessels to rebuild or replace AFA vessels. All 
LLP licenses specify a maximum length overall or MLOA (Sec.  
679.4(k)(3)(i)). Under existing regulations, a vessel fishing for 
groundfish pursuant to an LLP license cannot exceed the MLOA on that 
license (Sec.  679.4(k)(1)(i), Sec.  679.7(i)(6)). Therefore, under 
existing LLP regulations, an AFA vessel can only fish for Bering Sea 
pollock if, after rebuilding or replacement, (1) the AFA vessel is 
designated on an LLP license with a Bering Sea area endorsement and a 
gear designation authorizing trawl gear and (2) the AFA vessel does not 
exceed the MLOA on that LLP license.

Aleutian Islands Directed Pollock Fishery

    The original AFA applied to the directed pollock fishery in the 
entire BSAI Management Area (section 205(4), section 205(6), section 
205(10) of original AFA). The BSAI Management Area consists of the 
Bering Sea Subarea and the Aleutian Islands Subarea (see regulatory 
definitions in Sec.  679.2). In 2004, Congress adopted section 803 of 
Public Law 108-199, which was the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 
2004. In this statute, Congress allocated the directed pollock fishery 
in the Aleutian Islands (AI) to the Aleut Corporation and specified 
criteria for vessels to be eligible to harvest that allocation. NMFS 
published regulations implementing this statute in 2005 (70 FR 9856, 
March 1, 2005).
    Within statutory and regulatory restrictions, the Aleut Corporation 
may annually select the participants in this fishery (Sec.  679.4(m), 
Sec.  679.20(a)(5)(iii)(B)(5)). If the Aleut Corporation does not 
select participants, or if, for any reason, NMFS determines that the 
vessels in the AI directed pollock fishery will not likely harvest the 
TAC allowed in that fishery, NMFS may reallocate the TAC for that year 
in the AI directed pollock fishery to the Bering Sea pollock fishery 
(Sec.  679.20(a)(5)(iii)(B)(2)(ii)). The amended AFA and this proposed 
rule do not change any statutory or regulatory provisions that pertain 
to the AI directed pollock fishery. The amended AFA and this proposed 
rule do not limit the authority of the Aleut Corporation to select 
participants in the AI directed pollock fishery within the constraints 
of Public Law 108-199 and regulations implementing that statute.

II. Summary of the AFA as Amended by the Coast Guard Act

    On October 15, 2010, Congress amended the AFA in section 602 of the 
Coast Guard Act, Public Law 111-281. The Coast Guard Act revised 
section 208(g) of the AFA to essentially eliminate all restrictions on 
the ability of the owners of AFA vessels to rebuild or replace AFA 
vessels when the vessel participates in groundfish fisheries of the 
BSAI. Under the amended AFA, the owner of an AFA vessel may rebuild 
that vessel or replace that vessel in order to improve vessel safety 
and operational efficiencies, including fuel efficiency. The amended 
AFA removes the statutory limits on the length, tonnage, or horsepower 
of the rebuilt or replacement vessel when the rebuilt or replacement 
vessel is participating in BSAI groundfish fisheries. In addition, 
section 208(g) of the AFA, as revised, removes the MLOA limitation in 
the LLP on the length of an AFA rebuilt or replacement vessel when the 
vessel participates in BSAI groundfish fisheries.
    With respect to the Gulf of Alaska (GOA), section 208(g)(6) of the 
AFA, as revised, preserves the MLOA limitation in the LLP on the length 
of an AFA vessel when the vessel participates in GOA groundfish 
fisheries. An AFA vessel--whether an original AFA vessel, a rebuilt AFA 
vessel, or a replacement AFA vessel--may not conduct directed fishing 
for groundfish in any area in the GOA if the vessel exceeds the MLOA on 
the LLP groundfish license that is endorsed for that area and that is 
assigned to that vessel.
    With respect to participation in fisheries outside of Alaska, the 
original AFA in section 211(b)(5) prohibited an AFA catcher/processor 
or AFA mothership from harvesting or processing fish in any fishery 
outside of Alaska except the Pacific whiting fishery. The amended AFA 
in section 208(g)(1)(B) imposes that prohibition on rebuilt and 
replacement AFA catcher/processors and motherships because it subjects 
AFA rebuilt and replacement vessels to the same restrictions as the 
vessel being rebuilt or replaced. While the original AFA did not 
prohibit an AFA catcher vessel from harvesting fish in fisheries 
outside of Alaska, the amended AFA in section 208(g)(4) imposes a 
prohibition on AFA rebuilt or replacement catcher vessels similar to 
the prohibition that applied to AFA mothership vessels and listed AFA 
catcher/processors in section 211(b)(5) of the original AFA. Under the 
amended AFA, a rebuilt or replacement AFA catcher vessel is prohibited 
from harvesting fish in any fishery outside of Alaska except for the 
Pacific whiting fishery.
    The provisions discussed thus far describe the fishing privileges 
of the AFA rebuilt vessel and the AFA replacement vessel. The other 
side of the coin is what happens to the vessel that is replaced: the 
vessel that leaves the AFA fishery and is replaced by another vessel in 
the AFA fishery. Under section 211(b)(5) of the amended AFA, a vessel 
that is replaced is not eligible for a Federal fishery endorsement 
under 46 U.S.C. 12113 unless the replaced vessel becomes, in the 
future, a replacement vessel for another vessel leaving the AFA 
fishery.
    The amended AFA added section 210(b)(7) to the AFA. This new 
provision allows the owner of an AFA catcher vessel that is a member of 
an inshore cooperative to remove the

[[Page 34700]]

catcher vessel from the inshore cooperative. Under section 210(b)(7), 
the owner of the removed vessel must assign the catch history of the 
removed vessel to one or more vessels in the cooperative to which the 
removed vessel belonged. Under section 210(b)(7), the vessels that are 
assigned the pollock catch history of the removed vessel must stay in 
the fishery cooperative for at least one year after the date on which 
the vessel was removed from the cooperative. Except for the assignment 
of the pollock catch history of the removed vessel, section 
210(b)(7)(B) permanently extinguishes any claim that might have been 
based on the catch history of the removed vessel. This means that if 
the removed AFA catcher vessel was exempt from any sideboard 
limitations, NMFS permanently extinguishes the exemption and does not 
assign it to any other vessel.
    Finally, except for four named vessels, section 210(b)(7)(B) of the 
amended AFA prevents the owner of an AFA catcher vessel that is removed 
under this provision from using the removed vessel in other fisheries. 
The amended AFA accomplishes this by making a removed AFA catcher 
vessel permanently ineligible for a Federal fishery endorsement, except 
that a removed AFA vessel may receive a Federal fishery endorsement to 
reenter the AFA fishery as a replacement vessel.
    The four vessels are named in section 210(b)(7)(C) of the amended 
AFA. These vessels, if removed, may receive a Federal fishery 
endorsement to participate in a fishery under the authority of the New 
England Fishery Management Council or the Mid-Atlantic Fishery 
Management Council. These vessels are the AJ (U.S. official number 
905625), Dona Martita (U.S. official number 651751), Nordic Explorer 
(U.S. official number 678234), and Providian (U.S. official number 
1062183).
    The Coast Guard, in conjunction with MARAD, will issue Federal 
fishery endorsements in accord with the amended AFA. For information on 
the vessel documentation process, see the Coast Guard Web site for the 
National Vessel Documentation Center at https://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/nvdc/.

III. History of Council Action

    Section 208(g)(2) of the amended AFA gave the Council authority to 
recommend additional conservation and management measures if the 
Council concluded that such measures were necessary to ensure that the 
amended AFA did not undermine the effectiveness of the fishery 
management plans for either the BSAI or the GOA. Pursuant to section 
208(g)(2) of the amended AFA, the Council reviewed whether to recommend 
conservation and management measures for the GOA, in addition to the 
restrictions on fishing by AFA vessels in the GOA in existing 
regulations. The Council concluded that additional measures for the GOA 
were not necessary, in light of the protections for GOA participants 
provided by current management measures.
    The history of Council action on this subject is documented in 
minutes and newsletters of Council meetings, which are on the Council 
Web site: https://alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/npfmc. At its February 2012 
meeting, the Council received a discussion paper on the issues raised 
by the AFA amendments and directed staff to analyze alternatives to 
limit the participation by AFA rebuilt and replacement vessels in the 
GOA beyond the limitations already in the AFA amendments. At its 
October 2012 meeting, the Council reviewed a draft analysis and 
directed staff to make changes in light of comments by the Council's 
Scientific and Statistical Committee.
    At its February 2013 meeting, the Council reviewed the revised 
analysis. The Council approved the revised analysis for public review 
and adopted a preliminary preferred alternative. The Council's 
preliminary preferred alternative was Alternative 2, namely that NMFS 
should revise the relevant fishery management plans and regulations in 
accord with the AFA amendments, as NMFS planned to implement the AFA 
amendments, and that the Council did not need to recommend additional 
measures for the GOA. The other alternatives considered by the 
Council--Alternatives 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, and 2.4--placed additional 
restrictions on AFA rebuilt and replacement vessels when they 
participated in the GOA. At its April 2013 meeting, the Council 
unanimously adopted Alternative 2 as its preferred alternative.
    In describing Alternative 2, the Analysis described how NMFS would 
implement the AFA amendments, if the Council did not recommend any 
additional conservation and management measures (Analysis, Executive 
Summary at pages ix-xv). The Analysis describes four key areas of NMFS' 
implementation of the AFA amendments under Alternative 2. First, under 
Alternative 2, the owner of an AFA vessel would be able to rebuild or 
replace the vessel with no limitation on the length, size, or 
horsepower of the rebuilt or replacement vessel, when the rebuilt or 
replacement vessel was participating in the BSAI (section 208(g)(1)(A) 
of amended AFA).
    Second, with respect to the participation by AFA vessels in the 
GOA, the AFA amendments preserve the Maximum Length Overall (MLOA) 
restriction in the LLP for AFA rebuilt and replacement vessels when 
these vessels participate in the GOA (section 208(g)(6) of amended 
AFA). To participate in the GOA, AFA vessels must have an LLP license 
with an area endorsement for the Central Gulf or Western Gulf area 
(Sec.  679.4(k)(4)(ii)). An LLP license for the GOA may also have a 
Southeast Outside area endorsement but AFA vessels use trawl gear and 
trawl gear is prohibited in Southeast Outside (Sec.  679.22(b)(4)). 
Thus, under the AFA amendments as described in Alternative 2 in the 
Analysis, to fish for groundfish in the GOA, an AFA vessel 1) must have 
an LLP license with an area endorsement for Western Gulf or Central 
Gulf and 2) must not exceed the maximum length overall on that LLP 
license when the vessel is fishing pursuant to that license (Analysis, 
Executive Summary at page x). A vessel's LLP license endorsed for the 
Bering Sea is irrelevant to what the vessel can and cannot do in the 
GOA.
    Third, the AFA amendments allow the owner of an AFA catcher vessel 
that is a member of an inshore cooperative to remove the vessel from 
the inshore cooperative and to assign the pollock fishing allowance of 
the removed vessel to one or more vessels in the same inshore 
cooperative (section 210(b)(7) of amended AFA). Fourth, and related, 
NMFS concludes that the AFA amendments require that NMFS extinguish any 
sideboard exemptions of a removed catcher vessel. The AFA amendments 
provide that, except for the claim to the pollock fishing allowance of 
the removed vessel, NMFS must extinguish ``any claim (including 
relating to catch history)'' of the removed vessel (section 
210(b)(7)(B) of amended AFA). If the removed vessel was exempt from AFA 
sideboard limitations, the exemption was based on the vessel's catch 
history (Sec.  679.64(b)). A sideboard exemption is clearly a claim 
``relating to [the vessel's] catch history.'' Therefore, if the removed 
vessel was exempt from sideboard limitations, the AFA amendments 
require NMFS to extinguish that exemption and prohibit NMFS from 
assigning that sideboard exemption to any other vessel or vessels. 
(Analysis, Executive Summary at page xv).
    The Council specifically concurred with NMFS' interpretation of 
this provision in the AFA amendments (Analysis, Executive Summary at 
page

[[Page 34701]]

xx). The Council further concluded that, if NMFS did not implement the 
AFA amendments this way, the Council would recommend this action--
extinguishment of the sideboard exemptions of a removed vessel--as a 
conservation and management measure necessary to ensure that the AFA 
amendments did not diminish the effectiveness of fishery management 
plans of the BSAI or GOA (Analysis, Executive Summary at page xx).
    As for whether any other measures were necessary to protect the 
GOA, the Council concluded that no other measures were necessary. The 
Council noted the considerable protections already in place that 
restrict fishing by AFA vessels in the GOA. The Council relied on these 
measures to conclude that current management measures provided 
sufficient protection for participants in the GOA from increased 
activity from AFA rebuilt and replacement vessels.
    The Analysis describes the existing limitations on AFA vessels in 
the GOA: the limited number of LLP licenses with Central Gulf or 
Western Gulf endorsements; the sideboard limits on GOA species that 
apply to most AFA vessels; the sideboard limits in the Central GOA 
Rockfish Program for AFA sideboard-exempt vessels that participate in 
that program; limitations on the use of AFA catcher vessels that 
operate in both the BSAI and GOA (commonly known as a ``stand-down'' 
requirement); exclusive fishing seasons for AFA catcher vessels that 
participate in the pollock fisheries in the BSAI and GOA; trip limits 
for pollock that are part of the Steller sea lion mitigation measures; 
limits on AFA trawl catcher vessels operating as pollock tenders; and 
the provision in the Inter-Cooperative Agreement that prevents an AFA-
sideboard exempt vessel from leasing its pollock quota in a year once 
the vessel exceeds its GOA average harvest level from the 1995 through 
1997 period (Analysis, Section 1.9.1 and Section 1.11.2).
    A further restriction on AFA vessels in the GOA is the Pacific cod 
sector split. Beginning in 2012, NMFS annually allocates Pacific cod in 
the GOA by gear type and vessel type. The sector split allocates 
Pacific cod to the hook-and-line sector, the pot sector, and the trawl 
sector. Since AFA vessels use trawl gear to harvest pollock, and since 
the other gear sectors have their own Pacific cod allocation, the 
sector split restricts the harvest of Pacific cod in the non-trawl 
fisheries in the GOA by AFA vessels. For additional detail on the GOA 
Pacific cod sector split, see the final rule implementing this measure 
(76 FR 74670, December 2, 2011).
    The Council relied on the current suite of restrictions on the 
participation by AFA vessels in the GOA when the Council did not adopt 
an alternative that limited participation by AFA vessels in the GOA 
beyond the restrictions in current statute and regulation.
    As for the BSAI, and whether any additional measures were necessary 
to restrict fishing by AFA vessels in the BSAI, the Council did not 
specifically consider an alternative to limit non-pollock fishing by 
AFA rebuilt and replacement vessels in the BSAI beyond the restrictions 
currently in place. However, the Analysis presented to the Council did 
describe in detail the extent of fishing by AFA vessels in the BSAI in 
non-pollock fisheries and did describe the stringent sideboard limits 
and closures that restrict most AFA vessels (Analysis, Tables 1-1, 1-2, 
1-5, 1-8, 1-9, 1-14, 1-15, 1-18. 1-19, 1-23, and Section 1.9.1).
    The only AFA vessels that are exempt from any sideboard limits in 
the BSAI are 10 AFA catcher vessels that are exempt only from BSAI 
Pacific cod sideboard limits. These 10 sideboard-exempt vessels are, of 
course, subject to the TAC limits for BSAI Pacific cod and all other 
species they harvest. Furthermore, the AFA sideboard-exempt vessels in 
the BSAI are subject to many of the restrictions, noted above, that 
apply to AFA vessels in the GOA, including stand-down requirements for 
AFA catcher vessels that operate in both the BSAI and GOA; exclusive 
fishing seasons for AFA catcher vessels that participate in the pollock 
fisheries in the BSAI and GOA; and limits on AFA trawl catcher vessels 
from operating as pollock tenders (Analysis, Section 1.9.1 at pages 20-
22).
    Thus, with respect to the BSAI, the Council had before it 
considerable information regarding non-pollock fishing by AFA vessels 
in the BSAI and did not recommend any management measures beyond the 
limits on AFA vessels in existing regulations.

IV. The Need for Action

    The BSAI FMP and current regulations are consistent with the 
original AFA, but not with the amended AFA. On this basis, the need for 
action is clear. The BSAI FMP and regulations must be changed to 
conform to a statute adopted by Congress.
    This action is needed not only to implement the amended AFA, but 
also to further the purpose of the AFA amendments themselves. The 
primary purpose of the Coast Guard Act amendments to the AFA is to 
promote the safety and efficiency of the AFA fleet by allowing the 
owners of AFA vessels to rebuild or replace their vessels. Under the 
original AFA and existing regulations, an owner of an AFA vessel had to 
wait until the vessel sank or was damaged beyond repair before the 
owner of an AFA vessel could replace the AFA vessel with another 
vessel. The AFA fleet is aging. Of the 92 AFA catcher vessels active in 
the inshore and mothership sectors in 2011, all were built before 1992. 
Sixty were built before 1980 (Analysis, Table 1-7). Of the 21 catcher/
processors with AFA permits, all were built before 1990. Fifteen were 
built before 1980 (Analysis, Table 1-26).
    Under the original AFA, as reflected in current regulations, an 
owner of an AFA vessel cannot replace an AFA vessel with a vessel that 
is safer, more fuel efficient, or more operationally efficient in other 
ways. For example, the Analysis notes that advances in propulsion 
systems for catcher vessels, when paired with improved hull forms, can 
result in gains in fuel efficiency of up to 25 percent or more per 
pound of fish products delivered (Analysis, Section 1.11.2).
    Under the original AFA, the rebuilding or replacement of AFA 
vessels was limited by length, tonnage, and horsepower of the rebuilt 
or replacement vessel. Under the amended AFA, the owner of an AFA 
vessel may rebuild that vessel or replace that vessel with no limit on 
the length, tonnage, or horsepower of the rebuilt or replacement vessel 
when the rebuilt or replacement vessel is participating in the BSAI. 
The removal of these limits could substantially improve the operational 
efficiency of AFA vessels. For example, the Analysis notes that the 
owners of smaller and older AFA catcher/processors may wish to rebuild 
or replace their vessels to install a fish meal plant, which would 
enable them to sell fish meal and fish oil. Vessels may also use fish 
oil as fuel in hybrid diesel electric engines and reduce costs from 
purchasing petroleum-based fuel (Analysis, Section 1.11.2).
    The proposed rule would not require an AFA vessel owner to upgrade 
a vessel. An AFA vessel owner still must find that the improved safety 
and improved efficiency from rebuilding or replacing is worth the cost. 
The Analysis does not try to estimate how many owners of AFA catcher 
vessels, catcher/processors, or motherships will rebuild or replace 
vessels. The likelihood of a given vessel being rebuilt or replaced 
will depend on many factors, including the financial

[[Page 34702]]

resources of the vessel owner, which is proprietary and confidential 
information. NMFS does not have that information and therefore cannot 
reliably estimate how many AFA vessel owners would rebuild or replace 
their vessels under the proposed rule. The proposed rule would, 
however, allow the owners of AFA vessels to weigh the costs and 
benefits of rebuilding or replacing their vessels, and to act on their 
evaluation, before their vessels sink or are damaged beyond repair.
    Finally, this action responds to the problem that owners of catcher 
vessels in the inshore sector have experienced because the AFA had no 
provisions allowing for removal of vessels from the AFA fishery. Under 
existing regulations, the catcher vessels that do not actively fish for 
the cooperative must be tied up at the dock or put in storage, even if 
the owner has concluded that the vessel will never fish again. Except 
when a vessel was lost, the original AFA provided no way for the owner 
of an AFA inshore catcher vessel to transfer the catch history of one 
inshore catcher vessel to any other inshore catcher vessel. The owner 
of an AFA inshore catcher vessel could not do that simply because the 
owner wished to remove the vessel from the fishery.
    The inability of the owner of an AFA inshore catcher vessel to 
remove a vessel from the AFA fishery results from the requirement in 
the original AFA and AFA regulations for a vessel to be a member of an 
inshore cooperative. For each year the owner of a catcher vessel wants 
to be a member of a particular inshore cooperative, the catcher vessel 
must be a ``qualified catcher vessel'' for membership in that inshore 
cooperative. (Original AFA, section 211(b)(3); 50 CFR 
679.4(l)(6)(ii)(D)). To be a qualified catcher vessel, a catcher vessel 
must be eligible to harvest pollock in the Bering Sea and must be 
eligible to harvest groundfish in BSAI (Sec.  679.4(l)(1)(i); Sec.  
679.4(l)(6)(ii)(C)(3)). This means that, to be a member of an inshore 
cooperative, a catcher vessel must exist and must be designated on four 
permits: a Federal Fisheries Permit, an AFA catcher vessel permit with 
an inshore endorsement, an LLP groundfish license with a Bering Sea 
endorsement, and, of course, an inshore cooperative permit (Sec.  
679.4(l)(6)).
    Even though every catcher vessel in an inshore cooperative must be 
eligible to fish for pollock and for groundfish under the original AFA, 
not every catcher vessel in an inshore cooperative must actually fish 
for the cooperative. Some catcher vessels in a cooperative do not fish 
at all, or fish very little. Other, more efficient, catcher vessels in 
the cooperative harvest the pollock that the cooperative is authorized 
to catch. Some of the catcher vessels that do not fish are obsolete and 
inefficient, but under the original AFA and existing regulations, the 
owners of these vessels have no way to remove them from the AFA 
fishery. The AFA amendments and the proposed rule remedy this 
deficiency by allowing the owner of a catcher vessel that is a member 
of an inshore cooperative to remove that vessel from the AFA fishery 
subject to the conditions described above in Section II, ``Summary of 
the AFA as amended by the Coast Guard Act.''

Proposed Action

    This proposed rule would revise the current regulations to 
implement the amended AFA and Amendment 106 to the BSAI FMP. This 
proposed rule addresses the rebuilding, replacement, and removal of AFA 
vessels and would make the following changes.

AFA Rebuilt Vessels

    This proposed rule would establish the procedure for owners of AFA 
rebuilt vessels to maintain AFA permits on rebuilt vessels, would 
define the fishing privileges of the rebuilt vessel, and would modify 
the LLP regulations for AFA rebuilt vessels.
     Procedure. The proposed rule at Sec.  679.4(l)(7)(i) would 
establish a procedure for the owners of AFA rebuilt vessels to maintain 
AFA permits for AFA rebuilt vessels. Under the proposed rule, an owner 
of an AFA vessel may rebuild the AFA vessel to improve the safety of 
the vessel or the operational efficiency of the vessel including the 
fuel efficiency of the vessel. When a vessel owner applies for an AFA 
permit or LLP license for a rebuilt vessel, NMFS will ask the applicant 
to certify that the purpose of the rebuilding was to improve safety, 
improve operational efficiency, or both.
    In the application process, NMFS would not undertake to 
substantiate that the owner rebuilt the AFA vessel for the reason 
stated in the application. Similarly, NMFS would not undertake to 
substantiate through the application process that the rebuilt vessel 
was safer or more efficient. It would be difficult to establish a 
standard for judging whether a rebuilt or replacement vessel was safer 
or more efficient. NMFS does not believe that was the intent of 
Congress in amending the AFA. NMFS concludes that the purpose of the 
amended AFA is to allow the owner of an AFA vessel to weigh the 
considerable costs in rebuilding an AFA vessel against the benefits and 
to proceed if the owner determined the benefits were worth the costs.
    To maintain an AFA permit, the AFA rebuilt vessel must have a 
certificate of documentation with a Federal fishery endorsement. If the 
owner of an AFA vessel rebuilds an AFA vessel, the proposed rule at 
Sec.  679.4(l)(7)(i) would require that the owner notify NMFS and 
provide a copy of the documentation of the rebuilt vessel within 30 
days of the issuance of the documentation. The 30-day period would 
provide adequate time for the applicant to notify NMFS.
     Fishing privileges of AFA rebuilt vessels. Under the 
proposed rule at Sec.  679.4(l)(7)(i)(B), the owner of an AFA rebuilt 
vessel would be eligible to use the vessel in the same manner as the 
vessel before rebuilding and would be subject to the same requirements 
under 50 CFR part 679 that applied to the vessel before rebuilding, 
except for two requirements. First, under the proposed rule at Sec.  
679.4(l)(7)(i)(C), an AFA rebuilt vessel would be exempt from the MLOA 
requirement on an LLP groundfish license with a Bering Sea endorsement 
or an Aleutian Islands endorsement when that vessel is fishing for 
groundfish in the BSAI pursuant to that license, whether or not the 
vessel, before rebuilding, was exempt from the MLOA requirement. This 
exemption from the MLOA requirement for AFA rebuilt (and replacement) 
vessels implements a key feature of the AFA amendments.
    The exemption from the MLOA requirement would attach to any AFA 
vessel that was rebuilt after October 15, 2010, the effective date of 
the Coast Guard Act. The exemption would remain with the vessel. That 
is, under the proposed rule, once an AFA vessel is rebuilt, the vessel 
would be permanently exempt from the MLOA restriction on any LLP 
license with a Bering Sea or Aleutian Islands area endorsement on which 
the vessel is designated when the vessel is fishing for groundfish in 
the BSAI pursuant to that LLP license.
    The second area where an AFA rebuilt vessel would be subject to a 
different requirement from the AFA vessel before rebuilding relates to 
the fishing restrictions in Sec.  679.23(i). A little background is 
necessary to understand the issue. For certain species in the BSAI or 
GOA, Sec.  679.23 divides a fishing year into seasons. Section 679.23 
divides directed fishing for pollock in the BSAI into two seasons (A 
season and B season) and divides directed fishing for pollock in the 
GOA into four seasons (A season, B season, C season, and D season). 
Section 679.23(i) imposes restrictions that prevent catcher

[[Page 34703]]

vessels from fishing for pollock in every season in every year in the 
BSAI and GOA. For example, under this regulation, if a catcher vessel 
fishes for pollock in the BSAI in the A season, the catcher vessel 
cannot fish for pollock in the GOA until the start of the following C 
season.
    Section 679.23 is an inseason management tool to lessen competitive 
interactions between the groundfish fisheries and Steller sea lions. 
Section 679.23 ``limits the concentration of fishing effort in one area 
and reduces the potential for localized depletion of Steller sea lion 
prey'' (Analysis, section 1.9.1 at page 39). However, Sec.  679.23(i) 
exempts catcher vessels that are less than 125 feet LOA from the season 
restrictions in the regulation when the vessels are fishing east of 
157[deg]00' W. long.
    NMFS considered whether an AFA rebuilt catcher vessel that is 125 
feet LOA or greater after rebuilding would remain subject to the 
restrictions in Sec.  679.23, even if the vessel was less than 125 feet 
LOA before rebuilding and therefore was not subject to the restrictions 
in Sec.  679.23. Under the AFA amendments, NMFS concludes that an AFA 
rebuilt vessel that is 125 feet LOA or greater is subject to the 
restrictions in Sec.  679.23. Thus, under the proposed rule at Sec.  
679.4(l)(7)(i)(D), an AFA rebuilt catcher vessel that is 125 feet LOA 
or greater would be subject to the fishing restrictions in Sec.  
679.23, even if the vessel before rebuilding was not subject to the 
restrictions in Sec.  679.23.
    NMFS bases this provision in the proposed rule--the continuation of 
the restrictions in Sec.  679.23 on AFA rebuilt (and replacement) 
vessels--on three things: the language of the amended AFA, the purpose 
of the restrictions in Sec.  679.23, and the Analysis for this action.
    First, the amended AFA in section 208(g)(1)(A) states that 
``[n]otwithstanding any limitation to the contrary on replacing, 
rebuilding, or lengthening vessels, or transferring permits or licenses 
to a replacement vessel contained in section 679.2 and 679.4 [of Title 
50 CFR],'' a vessel owner may rebuild or replace an AFA vessel. The 
restriction in Sec.  679.23 is not in Sec.  679.2 or Sec.  679.2 of 
Title 50 CFR and is therefore not abrogated by reference in section 
208(g)(1)(A). Further, the restriction in Sec.  679.23 is not a 
``limitation . . . on replacing, rebuilding or lengthening'' AFA 
vessels. The proposed rule would still allow the owner of an AFA vessel 
to rebuild or replace an AFA vessel without limitation on the length of 
the vessel when it is fishing in the BSAI.
    The amended AFA in section 208(g)(1)(B) states that the rebuilt and 
replacement vessel will be ``subject to the same restrictions and 
limitations . . . as the vessel being rebuilt or replaced.'' The 
amended AFA in section 208(g)(1)(C) states that the rebuilt and 
replacement vessel should receive the permits ``as necessary . . . to 
operate in the same manner'' as the vessel prior to rebuilding or 
replacement. If the AFA vessel, prior to rebuilding or replacement, had 
been lengthened so that it was 125 feet LOA or greater, the AFA vessel 
would have been subject to the restrictions in Sec.  679.23. NMFS 
concludes that subjecting an AFA rebuilt vessel to the restrictions in 
Sec.  679.23 is subjecting an AFA rebuilt vessel to ``the same 
restrictions and limitations'' that applied to the vessel before 
rebuilding and is allowing the AFA rebuilt vessel to ``operate in the 
same manner'' as the vessel could have operated before rebuilding.
    Second, as noted, the purpose of Sec.  679.23 is to lessen 
competition between the groundfish fisheries and the Steller sea lion 
population. NMFS concludes that the purpose of the AFA amendments was 
not to lessen the scope of the protective measures for the Steller sea 
lion population in Sec.  679.23. Specifically, NMFS concludes that the 
purpose of the AFA amendments was not to grant more fishing 
opportunities to AFA vessels that become 125 feet LOA or longer through 
rebuilding as opposed to AFA vessels that are 125 feet or longer not as 
a result of rebuilding.
    Finally, the Analysis describes the restrictions in Sec.  679.23 on 
fishing by AFA vessels as part of Alternative 2, the Council's 
preferred alternative (Analysis, Section 1.9.1 at pages 39-40). In 
deciding not to recommend additional measures to limit AFA rebuilt and 
replacement vessels, the Council relied on this and other measures that 
currently limit the participation of AFA vessels in the BSAI and GOA. 
For these reasons, the proposed rule would keep in place the 
restrictions in Sec.  679.23 that apply to AFA vessels that are 125 
feet LOA or longer, even if the AFA vessel was less than 125 feet LOA 
before rebuilding.
     Changes in LLP regulations for AFA rebuilt vessels. The 
proposed rule would modify the LLP regulations at Sec.  679.2 and Sec.  
679.4(k). The proposed rule modifies these regulations to provide that 
an AFA rebuilt vessel is exempt from the MLOA requirement on an LLP 
groundfish license with a Bering Sea or Aleutian Islands area 
endorsement assigned to the vessel when the vessel is fishing for 
groundfish in the BSAI and when the LLP license specifies the 
exemption.
    The LLP license holder that wishes to designate an AFA rebuilt 
vessel on an LLP license is still subject to a limit of one voluntary 
transfer per year of an LLP license (Sec.  679.4(k)(7)(vi)). A change 
of the vessel designated on an LLP license is treated as a voluntary 
transfer of an LLP license (Sec.  679.4(k)(7)(vii)).

AFA Replacement Vessels

    This proposed rule would establish the procedure for the owner of 
an AFA vessel to obtain an AFA permit for a replacement vessel, would 
define the fishing privileges of the replacement vessel, and would 
modify the LLP regulations for AFA replacement vessels.
     Procedure. Under the proposed rule at Sec.  
679.4(l)(7)(ii), an owner of an AFA vessel may replace an AFA vessel 
with another vessel to improve vessel safety or to improve operational 
efficiency, including fuel efficiency. To do that, the owner of an AFA 
vessel would have to submit an application to NMFS that would (1) 
identify a replacement vessel, (2) provide vessel documentation for the 
replacement vessel, (3) show that the replacement vessel has a Federal 
fishery endorsement, and (4) identify the LLP groundfish license on 
which the AFA replacement vessel would be designated.
    On NMFS's approval of the application to replace the AFA vessel 
with another vessel, the AFA permit that designated the former, or 
replaced, vessel would be revoked and NMFS would issue a new AFA permit 
to the replacement vessel, unless the replacement vessel already had an 
AFA permit.
     Fishing privileges of AFA replacement vessels. The owner 
of the AFA replacement vessel would be eligible to use the AFA 
replacement vessel in the same manner as the AFA replaced vessel, and 
the AFA replacement vessel would be subject to the same requirements 
under 50 CFR part 679 that applied to the AFA replaced vessel, except 
for three requirements.
    First, under the proposed rule at Sec.  679.4(l)(7)(ii)(C), the AFA 
replacement vessel would be exempt from the MLOA on an LLP groundfish 
license with a Bering Sea or Aleutian Islands endorsement on which the 
replacement vessel is designated when the vessel is fishing pursuant to 
that LLP license, even if the replaced vessel was not exempt. As with 
AFA rebuilt vessels, the MLOA exemption would attach to a vessel that 
became an AFA replacement vessel after October 15, 2010, the

[[Page 34704]]

effective date of the AFA amendments in the Coast Guard Act, and would 
remain with the vessel.
    Second, under the proposed rule at Sec.  679.4(l)(7)(ii)(D), an AFA 
replacement vessel that exceeds 125 feet LOA would be subject to the 
fishing restrictions in Sec.  679.23(i), even if the replaced or 
departing vessel was less than 125 feet and was exempt from these 
restrictions. This is the same provision that would apply to AFA 
rebuilt vessels under the proposed rule. The rationale for this 
provision is thoroughly explained in the previous section, ``Fishing 
Privileges of AFA rebuilt vessels.''
    Third, under the proposed rule at Sec.  679.4(l)(7)(ii)(E), if the 
AFA replacement vessel was already an AFA-permitted catcher vessel with 
a sideboard exemption, and the replaced or departing vessel was an AFA 
catcher vessel without a sideboard exemption, the replacement vessel 
would maintain the sideboard exemption. The replacement vessel would 
not lose an exemption by virtue of acquiring the pollock catch history 
of a vessel that did not have an exemption.
     Changes in LLP regulations for AFA replacement vessels. As 
with AFA rebuilt vessels, the proposed rule would modify the LLP 
regulations at Sec.  679.2 and Sec.  679.4(k). The proposed rule would 
modify these rules to provide that an AFA replacement vessel is exempt 
from the MLOA requirement on an LLP groundfish license with a Bering 
Sea or Aleutian Islands area endorsement assigned to the vessel when 
the AFA replacement vessel is fishing for groundfish in the BSAI 
pursuant to that LLP license and when the LLP license specifies the 
exemption.
    The LLP license holder that wishes to designate an AFA replacement 
vessel on an LLP license is still subject to the limit in current 
regulation of one voluntary transfer per year of an LLP license (Sec.  
679.4(k)(7)(vi)). A change of the vessel designated on an LLP license 
is treated as voluntary transfer of an LLP license (Sec.  
679.4(k)(7)(vii)).
     Fishing privileges of AFA replaced vessels. The replaced 
vessel is the AFA vessel that has left the AFA fishery and is replaced 
by another vessel. Under the amended AFA at section 208(g)(5), the 
replaced vessel is not eligible for a Federal fishery endorsement 
unless, at some point in the future, the replaced vessel reenters the 
AFA fishery as a replacement vessel. Thus, the only fishing activity 
possible for a replaced vessel is reentering the AFA fishery as a 
replacement vessel.
    While the provisions explained above apply generally to rebuilding 
and replacing AFA catcher/processors, motherships, and catcher vessels, 
the proposed rule includes specific measures that apply to (1) the 
rebuilding or replacement of AFA catcher vessels with sideboard 
exemptions; (2) the replacement of vessels in AFA inshore cooperatives; 
(3) the status of AFA permits after a vessel is lost; and (4) how the 
owners of lost catcher AFA vessels may participate in AFA inshore 
cooperatives. Before examining the provisions in the proposed rule on 
removing AFA catcher vessels, NMFS will discuss these four special 
situations regarding rebuilding and replacing AFA vessels.

The Rebuilding or Replacing of AFA Catcher Vessels With Sideboard 
Exemptions

    Under current regulations, AFA catcher vessels are subject to 
sideboard limitations in the BSAI groundfish fisheries and in the GOA 
groundfish fisheries, unless an AFA catcher vessel met requirements in 
Sec.  679.64(b)(2) for an exemption. The regulation provides for an 
exemption in the BSAI only from BSAI Pacific cod sideboards, not from 
sideboard limits for any groundfish other than BSAI Pacific cod. The 
regulation provides for an exemption in the GOA from sideboards for all 
groundfish species.
    In the original AFA, the requirements for initial eligibility for 
an AFA vessel to be exempt from BSAI Pacific cod sideboard limits were 
that an AFA catcher vessel (1) was under 125 feet LOA; (2) harvested a 
relatively small amount of BSAI pollock between 1995 and 1997 (5,100 
metric tons); and (3) made a fairly high number of landings of BSAI 
Pacific cod (30 or more) in that same time period (Sec.  
679.4(l)(3)(ii)(1)).
    The requirements for initial eligibility for an AFA vessel to be 
exempt from GOA groundfish sideboard limits were that an AFA catcher 
vessel (1) was under 125 feet LOA; (2) harvested a relatively small 
amount of BSAI pollock between 1995 and 1997 (5,100 metric tons); and 
(3) made a fairly high number of landings of GOA groundfish (40 or 
more) in that same time period (Sec.  679.4(l)(3)(ii)(2)).
    Ten AFA catcher vessels met the requirements for an exemption from 
BSAI Pacific cod sideboard limits and 16 AFA catcher vessels met the 
requirements for an exemption from GOA groundfish sideboard limits 
(Analysis, Section 1.9.1). The regulations also exempt from BSAI 
Pacific cod sideboard limits a category of AFA catcher vessels 
regardless of the length of the vessel; namely, AFA catcher vessels 
that deliver to motherships are exempt from BSAI Pacific cod sideboard 
closures after March 1 of the fishing year (Sec.  679.64(b)(2)(i)(B)).
    Under the proposed rule at Sec.  679.4(l)(7), the owner of an AFA 
catcher vessel after rebuilding or replacement would be eligible to 
participate in the same manner as the vessel before rebuilding or 
replacement. This means that the owner of an AFA catcher vessel that is 
exempt from sideboard limits may rebuild or replace the AFA catcher 
vessel and maintain the exemption from sideboard limits, even if the 
rebuilt or replacement vessel exceeds the initial eligibility criterion 
that the vessel be less than 125 feet LOA. This aspect in the proposed 
rule--the continuation of sideboard exemptions for AFA replacement and 
rebuilt vessels--implements the language of the amended AFA; was part 
of Alternative 2, the Council's preferred alternative; and furthers the 
purpose of the amended AFA.
    First, in the amended AFA, section 208(g)(1)(A) states that the 
expanded privilege for rebuilding and replacing AFA vessels is 
``[n]otwithstanding any limitation to the contrary on replacing, 
rebuilding, or lengthening vessels or transferring permits or licenses 
to a replacement vessel contained in sections 679.2 and 679.4.'' The 
requirements for initial eligibility for a sideboard exemption are in 
Sec.  679.4, which supports the conclusion that an AFA vessel owner 
should be able to replace, rebuild, or lengthen without being subject 
to this limitation.
    The amended AFA in section 208(g)(1)(B) states that the rebuilt or 
replacement vessel ``shall be eligible to operate in the same manner 
and subject to the same restrictions and limitations'' as the vessel 
before rebuilding or the vessel before replacement. The amended AFA 
states in section 208(g)(1)(C) that ``[e]ach fishing permit and license 
held by the owner of the vessel or vessels to be rebuilt or replaced . 
. . shall be transferred to the rebuilt or replacement vessel or its 
owner, as necessary to permit such rebuilt or replacement vessel to 
operate in the same manner as the vessel prior to the rebuilding or the 
vessel it replaced, respectively.'' Under the amended AFA and this 
proposed rule, an AFA rebuilt or replacement catcher vessel would 
maintain an exemption from sideboard closures so as to allow the vessel 
``to operate in the same manner'' as the vessel did prior to rebuilding 
or replacement, notwithstanding the limitation in Sec.  679.4 that an 
AFA vessel must be less than 125 feet LOA to have an exemption from 
sideboards.

[[Page 34705]]

    Second, this provision in the proposed rule--continuation of 
sideboard exemptions for AFA rebuilt or replacement vessels--was part 
of Alternative 2, the Council's preferred alternative. Under 
Alternative 2, as explained in the Analysis, an AFA rebuilt or 
replacement vessel would have sideboard exemptions if the vessel before 
rebuilding, or if the vessel that was being replaced, had exemptions 
(Analysis, Executive Summary at page ix).
    Finally, the continuation of sideboard exemptions for AFA rebuilt 
or replacement vessels furthers the primary purpose of the AFA 
amendments, which is to allow the owners of AFA vessels to rebuild and 
replace AFA vessels in accord with their determination that the costs 
of rebuilding and replacing are worth the benefits. The proposed rule 
would allow the owner of an AFA catcher vessel that is exempt from AFA 
sideboards to determine whether to rebuild or replace the vessel based 
on the costs and benefits of rebuilding and replacing. The proposed 
rule would not make the owners of AFA sideboard-exempt vessels choose 
between rebuilding/replacing their vessels andcontinuing to operate 
with an exemption from sideboard limits.
    However, with respect to AFA vessels that are exempt from GOA 
groundfish sideboard limits, the amended AFA and this proposed rule 
would preserve the requirement that an AFA vessel may not fish for 
groundfish in any area in the GOA if the AFA vessel exceeds the MLOA on 
the vessel's LLP license endorsed for the GOA. This is a very 
significant constraint on the length of AFA vessels that may operate in 
the GOA. Although 16 AFA vessels are exempt from sideboard limitations 
in the GOA, there is only one LLP groundfish license with a Central 
Gulf area endorsement for a trawl catcher vessel that exceeds 125 feet 
LOA and that vessel may not exceed 149 feet LOA. There are no LLP 
groundfish licenses with a Western Gulf area endorsement for a trawl 
catcher vessel that exceeds 125 feet LOA (Analysis, Table 1-51). Thus, 
under the proposed rule, only one AFA catcher vessel could exceed 125 
feet LOA and operate in the GOA with an exemption from AFA sideboard 
limits, and that vessel could not be longer than 149 feet LOA.

The Replacement of Catcher Vessels in AFA Inshore Cooperatives

    NMFS issues AFA inshore cooperative fishing permits annually to 
inshore cooperatives. The AFA inshore cooperative fishing permit 
displays the amount of pollock the inshore cooperative is authorized to 
harvest for the upcoming fishing year. The permit displays this amount 
as a percentage of the Bering Sea pollock allocation. NMFS determines 
this amount by adding together the pollock that each catcher vessel 
member of the cooperative may harvest. Under the proposed rule, when 
the owner of a catcher vessel that is a member of an inshore 
cooperative replaces that vessel, the replacement vessel would be 
eligible to join the same inshore cooperative of which the replaced 
vessel was a member. NMFS would transfer the catch history of the 
replaced vessel to the replacement vessel.
    The proposed rule would not change the current deadline for the 
annual application for an inshore cooperative permit. NMFS still must 
receive the inshore cooperative application for the upcoming fishing 
year by December 1 of the prior year. The cooperative application must 
still list all vessels that are members of the cooperative. And a 
cooperative will continue to be prohibited from adding or subtracting a 
vessel for the upcoming fishing year after December 1 of the prior year 
(Sec.  679.4(l)(6)(iv), Sec.  679.4(l)(6)(v)). The purpose of the 
December 1 deadline is to allow NMFS to calculate the allocations for 
the upcoming year for each cooperative and for the open access sector, 
if any vessels are in open access.
    The December 1 deadline would not apply to applications to replace 
or remove vessels pursuant to the replacement/removal procedure in this 
proposed rule. A vessel owner may apply to do that at any time. The 
replacement or removal of a vessel in an inshore cooperative would not 
interfere with NMFS' annual calculations for the inshore sector. If 
NMFS approves the replacement of one vessel that is a member of an 
inshore cooperative with another vessel, NMFS would not have to change 
the pollock allocations to the cooperatives. Similarly, if NMFS 
approves removal of a vessel from an AFA inshore cooperative and 
assigns the catch history of the removed vessel to one or more vessels 
in the same cooperative, NMFS would not have to change the allocations 
to the cooperatives.

The Status of AFA Permits After a Vessel Is Lost

    The proposed rule addresses the situation of owners of AFA vessels 
who experience a total or constructive loss of their vessel. The 
amended AFA completely revised section 208(g) of the original AFA, 
which had allowed the owner of AFA vessel to replace the vessel only if 
it was lost. Section 208(g) of the amended AFA allows the owner of an 
AFA vessel to replace or rebuild the vessel at any time to improve 
safety or efficiency.
    Under section 208(g) of the original AFA, the owner of an AFA 
vessel had 36 months from the end of the last year in which the AFA 
vessel harvested or processed pollock to replace a lost AFA vessel. The 
original AFA was silent as to the privileges of the owner of a lost AFA 
vessel during that period and silent as to the privileges of the owner 
of the lost AFA vessel after that period had lapsed if the owner did 
not replace the AFA vessel during the allotted time.
    The amended AFA also did not explicitly address what happens to the 
AFA fishing privileges of a lost vessel between the time that the owner 
loses the vessel and the owner replaces the vessel. To implement the 
amended AFA, and to provide clarity to the public, the proposed rule 
specifies the status of an AFA permit in the event of a total or 
constructive loss of an AFA vessel. NMFS specifically welcomes comment 
on this provision.
    NMFS examined three options. The first option would provide that in 
the event of a total or constructive loss of an AFA vessel, the AFA 
permit that designates the lost vessel would immediately become invalid 
and the owner of the lost AFA vessel would have no AFA fishing 
privileges until the owner replaces or removes the lost vessel under 
the replacement/removal procedures in the proposed rule. This approach 
would pressure the owner of the lost AFA vessel to immediately replace 
or remove the lost vessel.
    The second option would provide that in the event of a total or 
constructive loss of an AFA vessel, the AFA permit would remain valid 
until the AFA permit holder designated a replacement vessel. This 
option would have no mechanism that required the AFA permit holder to 
designate a replacement vessel and would change the AFA permit from a 
permit tied to a specific vessel to a permit that was not tied to a 
vessel. NMFS believes the amended AFA was not meant to fundamentally 
change the nature of the AFA permit in this way.
    The third option would provide that in the event of total or 
constructive loss of an AFA vessel, the AFA permit would remain valid 
for a reasonable, but not unlimited, period of time to allow the owner 
of the lost AFA vessel to continue to receive privileges under the AFA 
without immediately having to designate a replacement vessel. The 
proposed rule would implement this

[[Page 34706]]

approach. NMFS recognizes that, after a vessel owner incurs the loss of 
a vessel, it takes time to decide whether and how to replace the 
vessel. It takes time, sometimes a considerable amount, to collect 
payment under an insurance policy. It takes time to arrange financing 
for a replacement vessel. NMFS determined that the proposed rule should 
provide the vessel owner with a reasonable period of time to take these 
steps in the wake of an event such as a complete vessel loss.
    NMFS determined that a reasonable period of time for the vessel 
owner to replace a lost vessel or, in the case of an AFA catcher vessel 
in an inshore cooperative, to remove a lost vessel, is the same period 
of time that was in the original AFA: the time period starting on the 
date of the vessel loss and ending on December 31 of the year that is 3 
years (36 months) after the year in which the vessel was lost (section 
208(g)(3) of the original AFA). It is easier to understand by example. 
Under the proposed rule at Sec.  679.4(l)(ii), if a vessel sinks on 
February 15, 2016, the AFA permit on the lost vessel would be valid 
until December 31, 2019, unless the vessel owner has been issued an AFA 
permit on a replacement vessel before December 31, 2019, or the vessel 
owner has removed the lost vessel before that date. For ease of 
reference, this preamble refers to this time period as a ``3-year 
period,'' although technically it is a ``3-year plus time period'' 
because the AFA permit remains valid until December 31 of the year in 
which the vessel was lost and then 3 more years after that.
    NMFS believes that a 3-year period would provide a vessel owner 
with adequate time to decide whether to replace or remove a lost vessel 
and to apply to take one of those actions. As noted, this 3-year period 
is the same period of time that the original AFA in section 208(g) gave 
the owner of an original AFA vessel to replace an AFA vessel. This 3-
year period was adequate for the replacement of four AFA vessels that 
were lost before enactment of the Coast Guard Act.
    Under the proposed rule, NMFS would revoke the AFA permit that 
designated the lost vessel if, before the end of the 3-year period if, 
during that period, the owner of the AFA vessel replaces the lost 
vessel with another vessel or removes the lost vessel pursuant to the 
replacement/removal procedures established by the proposed rule. It 
would be inconsistent with the AFA to have two AFA permits authorizing 
two AFA vessels to fish based on the fishing history of the same lost 
vessel.
    If, at the end of the 3-year period, the AFA vessel owner had not 
replaced or removed the lost AFA vessel, NMFS would suspend the AFA 
permit that designated that lost vessel and the AFA permit would not be 
valid. Since NMFS may have to suspend the AFA permit, the proposed rule 
would require that the owner of an AFA vessel notify NMFS within 120 
days after the vessel is lost.
    After the permit was suspended, the owner of the lost AFA vessel 
could still apply to replace or remove the lost vessel that was 
designated on the AFA permit. But while the permit was suspended, the 
owner of the lost AFA vessel would not have a valid AFA permit and 
would have no fishing privileges based on the suspended AFA permit.
    For several reasons, NMFS believes it is highly unlikely that any 
AFA permits would be suspended under this provision. The permits are 
valuable. The AFA permit holders have operated in a highly regulated 
fishery since 1998. And since AFA vessels almost always fish as members 
of cooperatives, the other members of the cooperative and the 
cooperative manager would have a great interest in making sure a 
member's AFA permit is not suspended.
    The original AFA in section 208(g) recognized two types of vessel 
loss that allowed the owner of an AFA vessel to replace an AFA vessel: 
total loss of the AFA vessel or constructive loss of the AFA vessel. 
The proposed rule also recognizes these two types of vessel loss. The 
proposed rule would define total loss and constructive loss for 
purposes of determining the validity of AFA permits and would clarify 
when the time period for replacing or removing a vessel would begin. 
The proposed rule would define total loss and constructive loss in 
Sec.  679.4(l)(1)(ii)(B)(3) and Sec.  679.4(l)(7)(v)(D). Total loss 
would be defined as the complete physical loss of a vessel, such as 
when a vessel sinks or is otherwise destroyed. Constructive loss would 
be defined as when the vessel is damaged so that the cost of repairing 
the vessel exceeds the value of the vessel. The proposed definition of 
constructive loss for purposes of AFA permits tracks the common 
definition of constructive loss used in maritime insurance.
    The proposed rule would define the date of the total loss of the 
vessel as the date when the vessel was physically lost. The proposed 
rule would define the date of the constructive loss of the vessel as 
the date when the vessel suffered the damage that resulted in the cost 
of repair exceeding the value of the vessel.

How the Owners of Lost AFA Catcher Vessels May Participate in AFA 
Inshore Cooperatives

    The proposed rule addresses how NMFS would evaluate an application 
for an inshore cooperative fishing permit if the applicant includes the 
catch history of a lost catcher vessel. In examining this provision, it 
is helpful to keep in mind the standard requirements for a vessel to be 
a member of a particular cooperative. To be a member of an inshore 
cooperative, a catcher vessel must meet permit requirements and landing 
requirements (Sec.  679.4(l)(6)(ii)(D)(1) and (2)). The permit 
requirements are general. An AFA catcher vessel must have a valid AFA 
permit and an LLP groundfish license that authorizes the vessel to 
engage in trawling for pollock in the Bering Sea (Sec.  
679.4(l)(6)(ii)(D)(1)).
    The landing requirements are specific to each cooperative. Each 
cooperative designates a particular AFA inshore processor to which the 
cooperative members have agreed to deliver at least 90 percent of their 
pollock catch (Sec.  679.4(l)(6)(i)(B)). To be a member of a particular 
cooperative, the catcher vessel must have delivered more pollock to the 
processor associated with that cooperative than to any other processor 
during the prior year or, if the vessel is inactive, during the last 
year that the vessel made pollock deliveries (Sec.  
679.4(l)(6)(ii)(D)(2)). This means that if a catcher vessel wishes to 
switch to a new cooperative, the catcher vessel must first spend a year 
in the open access sector and, for that year, deliver more fish to the 
processor associated with the new cooperative than to any other 
processor. After that year, the catcher vessel could join the new 
cooperative.
    As described earlier, under the proposed rule, if an AFA vessel is 
lost, the AFA permit that designated the lost catcher vessel would be 
valid for up to 3 years from December 31 of the year in which the 
vessel was lost. As a corollary to that provision, the proposed rule 
would establish at Sec.  679.4(l)(6)(ii)(D)(4) that, if an AFA catcher 
vessel with an inshore endorsement is lost, the owner of the lost 
catcher vessel would be qualified to join an inshore cooperative for up 
to 3 years from December 31 of the year in which the vessel was lost. 
The AFA permit designating the lost AFA catcher vessel would be revoked 
earlier if the owner of the lost catcher vessel replaces the lost 
vessel or removes the lost vessel. As explained above, if an AFA 
catcher vessel owner had not replaced or removed the lost vessel by the 
end of the 3-year period,

[[Page 34707]]

the AFA permit that designated the lost vessel would be suspended. 
While the AFA permit was suspended, the owner of the lost catcher 
vessel would be unable to be a member of an inshore cooperative because 
the owner of the lost vessel would not have a valid AFA permit.
    The proposed rule would establish which inshore cooperative that 
the owner of a lost AFA catcher vessel may join during this 3-year 
period. The proposed rule would do this by adding a provision to the 
inshore cooperative permit regulation at Sec.  679.4(l)(6)(ii)(D)(4). 
If the catcher vessel was lost during a year when the owner of the lost 
vessel was a member of an inshore cooperative, the owner of the lost 
AFA vessel could join that inshore cooperative for the 3-year period 
while the AFA permit designating the lost vessel remained valid.
    In the unlikely event that a catcher vessel is lost during a year 
when the catcher vessel was not a member of an inshore cooperative, but 
the vessel had made deliveries to an AFA inshore processor during that 
year before the vessel was lost, the owner of the lost vessel would be 
allowed to join the inshore cooperative that is associated with the 
processor to which the vessel delivered more pollock than any other 
processor during that year.
    In both these situations--when the lost catcher vessel was a member 
of a cooperative and when the lost catcher vessel was in the open 
access sector but had made deliveries to a processor associated with a 
cooperative--the proposed rule would not allow the owner of the lost 
vessel to join a different cooperative. This limitation is in keeping 
with the AFA cooperative structure and the landing requirements to be a 
member of a cooperative (Sec.  679.4(l)(6)(ii)(D)(2)). The owner chose 
that cooperative for the lost vessel's most recent year of 
participation. Further, the owner of the lost vessel could not meet the 
requirements to become a member of a different cooperative; namely 
after the catcher vessel sank, the vessel could not have delivered 
pollock to an AFA inshore processor associated with a different 
cooperative.
    In the very unlikely event that a catcher vessel is lost during a 
year when the vessel was not designated on an inshore cooperative 
permit, and before the vessel made any pollock deliveries, the owner of 
the lost vessel would be permitted to join any inshore cooperative 
while the AFA permit designating the lost vessel was valid.
    NMFS notes that it is rare that vessels are lost. From 1998 to 
2010, NMFS is aware of only four AFA vessels that were lost. And it is 
very rare that an inshore catcher vessel is not a member of an inshore 
cooperative. As noted earlier, since 2004, only two inshore vessels 
have not fished as a member of a cooperative and that was only for one 
year (2010). Thus, even though the proposed rule addresses the 
possibility that a catcher vessel would be lost, and that the lost 
catcher vessel would not be a member of a cooperative, it is quite 
unlikely this will occur. If an inshore catcher vessel is lost, in all 
likelihood, it would be completely straightforward what cooperative the 
owner of the lost catcher vessel may join during the 3-year period when 
the permit may remain valid. It would be the cooperative of which the 
lost catcher vessel was a member.

Removing an AFA Catcher Vessel From the AFA Fishery

    The proposed rule at Sec.  679.4(l)(7)(iii) would allow the owner 
of an AFA catcher vessel that is a member of an inshore cooperative to 
remove that vessel from the AFA fishery and assign the Bering Sea 
pollock catch history of the removed vessel to one or more catcher 
vessels within the cooperative subject to four conditions that NMFS 
would administer. Each of these conditions is required by section 
210(b) of the amended AFA.
    First, under the proposed rule at Sec.  679.4(l)(7)(iii)(B), the 
owner of the AFA catcher vessel that is being removed would be required 
to direct NMFS to assign the catch history of the removed catcher 
vessel to one or more AFA catcher vessels that are members of the 
inshore cooperative to which the removed vessel belonged as of the date 
that the vessel owner submitted an application for removal. If the 
owner of the AFA catcher vessel directs NMFS to assign the catch 
history of the removed vessel to more than one vessel, the owner would 
be required to specify the percentage of catch history that would be 
assigned to each vessel. The proposed regulation would not allow the 
catch history of the removed vessel to be free-floating, or unassigned. 
The catch history must be assigned to one or more vessels in the 
cooperative to which the removed vessel belonged. The approval by NMFS 
of removing a catcher vessel and the assignment by NMFS of the catch 
history to another vessel or vessels would occur at the same time.
    Second, except for assigning the inshore pollock catch history, 
NMFS would permanently extinguish all other claims relating to the 
catch history of the removed vessel. The proposed rule at Sec.  
679.4(l)(7)(C) includes this provision. Specifically, under the 
proposed rule, if an AFA catcher vessel is exempt from an AFA sideboard 
limitation, and that vessel is removed from the AFA fishery, NMFS would 
permanently extinguish that sideboard exemption and would not assign 
the exemption to any other vessel or vessels in the inshore 
cooperative.
    Third, under the proposed rule at Sec.  679.4(l)(7)(iii)(D), the 
vessel or vessels that are assigned the catch history of the removed 
vessel--the receiving vessel or vessels--could not themselves be 
removed from the cooperative for one year from the date on which the 
receiving vessel or vessels were assigned the catch history of the 
removed vessel. For example, under the proposed rule, if NMFS approved 
the assignment of catch history of a removed vessel to a receiving 
vessel on July 1, 2016, the receiving vessel could not be removed from 
the cooperative until July 1, 2017.
    Fourth, under the proposed rule at Sec.  679.4(l)(7)(iv), a vessel 
that is removed would be permanently ineligible to receive any permits 
to operate in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) off Alaska unless, 
after being removed, the removed vessel reenters the AFA fishery as a 
replacement vessel for another vessel. This is based on section 
210(b)(7)(B), which states that removal of a catcher vessel from an 
inshore cooperative extinguishes ``any claim (including relating to 
catch history) associated with such vessel that could qualify any owner 
of such vessel for any permit to participate in the exclusive economic 
zone of the United States.'' While the proposed rule would prohibit 
participation by a removed vessel in the EEZ off Alaska, it is 
important to note that section 210(b)(7)(B) prohibits participation by 
a removed vessel in the entire United States EEZ.

Application Procedures

    NMFS has created one form that would be used by the owners of AFA 
vessels that rebuild, replace, or remove their AFA vessels: ``American 
Fisheries Act (AFA) Permit: Rebuilt, Replaced, or Removed Vessel 
Application.'' The application and instructions would be published on 
the NMFS Alaska Region Web site at www.alaskafisheries.noaa.gov upon 
the effective date of a final rule.
    After NMFS receives a complete application, NMFS would take the 
action requested by the applicant if the applicant met the requirements 
for NMFS to take the action. If the

[[Page 34708]]

application is a notification to NMFS of an AFA rebuilt vessel, NMFS 
would acknowledge the notification. The AFA vessel would be designated 
on an LLP license. NMFS would reissue to the AFA rebuilt vessel an LLP 
groundfish license with an exemption from the MLOA restriction when the 
AFA rebuilt vessel is used to fish for groundfish in the BSAI pursuant 
to that LLP license.
    If the applicant seeks to replace an AFA vessel, NMFS would issue a 
new AFA permit to the replacement vessel, unless the replacement vessel 
already is designated on an AFA permit. NMFS would revoke the AFA 
permit on the former, or replaced, AFA vessel. On the application form, 
the AFA vessel owner would indicate the LLP license on which the AFA 
replacement vessel would be designated. NMFS would issue to the AFA 
replacement vessel an LLP groundfish license with an exemption from the 
MLOA restriction. The exemption would only be valid when the AFA 
replacement vessel is used to fish for groundfish in the BSAI pursuant 
to that LLP license. If the applicant seeks to replace an AFA catcher 
vessel with an inshore endorsement, NMFS would modify the AFA permit of 
the replacement vessel so that the replacement vessel has the 
exemptions from sideboard limitations, if any, of the replaced vessel.
    If the applicant seeks to remove an AFA catcher vessel with an 
inshore endorsement, NMFS would assign the pollock catch history of the 
removed vessel to one or more vessels in the inshore cooperative to 
which the removed vessel belonged, in accord with the application of 
the owner of the removed vessel. NMFS would notify the applicant that 
the AFA permit designating the removed catcher vessel was revoked and 
that, except for the reassigned pollock history, NMFS had extinguished 
all claims related to the catch history of the removed vessel, 
including any claims to exemptions from sideboard limitations.
    If NMFS believes that the application is deficient, NMFS would 
notify the applicant and give the applicant one 30-day period to remedy 
the deficiencies in the application. After the 30-day period, NMFS 
would review the application and any information submitted within the 
30-day period. NMFS would either grant the application or deny the 
application by issuing an Initial Administrative Determination (IAD), 
which would explain the basis for the denial.

Appeal Procedures

    Under the proposed rule at Sec.  679.4(l)(8)(iii), an applicant 
would be able to appeal the denial of an application pursuant to the 
appeal procedures at 15 CFR part 906. NMFS has established a National 
Appeals Office (NAO) located at NMFS Headquarters in Silver Spring, 
Maryland. In 2014, NMFS adopted rules of procedure for NAO appeals in 
15 CFR part 906. (Final Rule, 79 FR 7056 (Feb. 6, 2014)). The appeal 
procedures in 15 CFR part 906 are mandatory for appeals in limited 
access privilege programs (LAPPs) under section 303A of the Magnuson-
Stevens Act. 15 CFR 906.1(b). Section 303A applies only to limited 
access privilege programs that were adopted after January 12, 2007, the 
date of enactment of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 
Management Reauthorization Act of 2006. 16 U.S.C. 1853a. The AFA was 
adopted on October 21, 1998. Therefore, AFA appeals are not required to 
be heard under the procedural rules at 15 CFR part 906.
    NMFS may, however, request that NAO decide appeals in programs 
where NAO does not have mandatory jurisdiction. 15 CFR 906.1(d). In the 
proposed rule, NMFS proposes to use NAO for appeals of initial 
administrative determinations issued under this rule and to adopt 15 
CFR part 906 as the procedural rules for AFA appeals.
    In the past, NMFS Alaska Region had its own appeals office and its 
own procedural rules for appeal in 50 CFR 679.43. NMFS Alaska Region no 
longer has its own appeals office and therefore is opting to use the 
NAO and the procedural rules for the NAO.
    In developing this proposed rule, NMFS identified an error in the 
definition of mothership in 50 CFR 679.2. The current regulation 
states: ``AFA mothership means a mothership permitted to process BS 
pollock under Sec.  679.4(l)(5).'' Section 679.4(l)(5) is ``AFA inshore 
processor permits.'' Section 679.4(l)(4) is ``AFA mothership permits.'' 
NMFS therefore proposes to change the definition of mothership in Sec.  
679.2 to state: ``AFA mothership means a mothership permitted to 
process BS pollock under Sec.  679.4(l)(4).''

Classification

    Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) and 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens 
Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed 
rule is consistent with the BSAI FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-
Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration 
of comments received during the public comment period.
    The proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for 
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
    A Regulatory Impact Review/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 
was prepared. An Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was 
prepared as required in section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act 
(RFA). On June 20, 2013, the Small Business Administration issued a 
final rule revising the small business size standards for several 
industries effective July 22, 2013 (78 FR 37398, June 20, 2013). The 
rule increased the size standard for Finfish Fishing from $4.0 to 19.0 
million, Shellfish Fishing from $4.0 to 5.0 million, and Other Marine 
Fishing from $4.0 to 7.0 million. Id. at 37400 (Table 1). The new size 
standards were used to prepare the IRFA for this action.
    The IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if 
adopted, would have on small entities. A description of the action, why 
it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action are 
contained under the heading ``Need for Action'' in the preamble and in 
the SUMMARY section of the preamble. A summary of the Analysis follows. 
A copy of the complete Analysis is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES).

Number and Description of Small Entities Regulated by the Proposed 
Action

    This action would regulate the owners of vessels that are 
designated on AFA permits; these vessels are catcher vessels, catcher/
processor vessels, and motherships. In 2013, 105 catcher vessels, 21 
catcher/processors, and 3 motherships were designated on AFA permits 
(Analysis, Section 2.4). In assessing whether an entity is small, the 
RFA requires NMFS to consider affiliations between entities.
    With respect to AFA catcher/processors, the IRFA states: ``All AFA 
catcher/processors are affiliated through membership in the Pollock 
Conservation Cooperative; the members of this cooperative had estimated 
2012 gross revenues from pollock alone in excess of $500 million. Thus 
these are large entities.'' (Analysis, Section 2.4, footnote omitted).
    With respect to catcher vessels, the IRFA states: ``All AFA catcher 
vessels are members of one of eight cooperatives delivering pollock to 
inshore processing plants, to motherships, or to catcher/processors. 
The cooperative of catcher vessels delivering to catcher/processors was 
closely affiliated with the catcher/processor cooperative, and thus the 
member entities are large. The seven cooperatives delivering to 
processing

[[Page 34709]]

plants or motherships had gross revenues from pollock alone in excess 
of $19 million, and/or were affiliated with processing operations that 
themselves met the large entity threshold of 500 employees for entities 
of that type, and/or were affiliated with processors who did.'' 
(Analysis, Section 2.4).
    With respect to AFA motherships, the IRFA states: ``Three 
motherships accept deliveries of pollock from catcher vessels. While 
these vessels are authorized to join the cooperative of catcher vessels 
making such deliveries, they have not recently chosen to do so. 
However, each of these motherships is believed to be a large entity, 
based on corporate affiliations with other large processing firms.'' 
(Analysis, Section 2.4).
    Thus, the IRFA concluded that all of the entities regulated by this 
action are ``large'' entities for the purpose of the RFA. If that is 
so, NMFS need not have prepared an IRFA for this proposed rule because 
an IRFA is necessary only to evaluate the impact of a proposed rule on 
small entities. NMFS prepared an IRFA, however, because the IRFA 
acknowledged that the data on ownership and affiliation of AFA entities 
was limited.

Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements

    This action imposes one additional reporting requirement on the 
owner of an AFA rebuilt vessel. If the owner of an AFA vessel rebuilds 
an AFA vessel, the owner shall submit the documentation for the rebuilt 
vessel to NMFS within 30 days of the issuance of the documentation.
    Apart from this requirement, the owners of AFA rebuilt vessels 
would be subject to the same recordkeeping and reporting requirements 
after rebuilding as before rebuilding. Similarly, the owners of AFA 
replacement vessels would be subject to the same recordkeeping and 
reporting requirements that applied to the replaced, or former, AFA 
vessel. If a vessel is removed, the owners of the AFA vessels that are 
assigned the catch history of the removed vessel would be subject to 
the same recordkeeping and reporting requirements after they are 
assigned the catch history of the removed vessel as before they were 
assigned the catch history of the removed vessel.
    NMFS has created an application form for the owner of an AFA vessel 
who wishes to take any of the actions allowed by this rule. The 
application form allows the owner of an AFA vessel to notify NMFS of 
rebuilding, to request to replace an AFA vessel, or to remove an AFA 
vessel.

Duplicate, Overlapping, or Conflicting Federal Rules

    This proposed rule is necessary because existing rules conflict 
with the AFA amendments in the Coast Guard Act. Apart from that 
conflict, NMFS has not identified any duplication, overlap, or conflict 
between this proposed action and existing Federal rules.

Description of Significant Alternatives That Minimize Adverse Impacts 
on Small Entities

    Section 603 of the RFA requires that NMFS should describe any 
significant alternatives to the proposed action that would accomplish 
the stated objectives of applicable statutes and would minimize any 
significant adverse economic impacts on small entities. Although the 
IRFA concluded that this action did not directly regulate any small 
entities, the Council and NMFS assumed, for the purpose of the IRFA, 
that the directly regulated entities were small entities and considered 
the potential effects on the directly regulated entities.
    The Council considered Alternative 1; Alternative 2; and 
Alternatives 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, and 2.4. Alternative 1 was no action. The 
Council did not adopt Alternative 1 because it did not conform 
regulations and the BSAI FMP to a statute adopted by Congress, namely 
the AFA amendments in the Coast Guard Act. Alternative 1 continued the 
stringent restrictions in current regulation on the ability of the 
owners of AFA vessels to upgrade their vessels through rebuilding or 
replacing the vessels. Alternative 1 continued the prohibition in 
current regulation on the owners of AFA catcher vessels from removing 
their vessels and assigning the catch history of their vessels to other 
vessels in their cooperatives. Alternative 1 completely contradicted 
the objectives of the amended AFA.
    Under Alternative 2, ``the status quo'' alternative, fishery 
management plans and existing regulations would be changed to conform 
to the AFA amendments, as NMFS interprets the AFA amendments. The 
Council and NMFS concluded that the BSAI FMP was inconsistent with the 
AFA amendments. The Council and NMFS therefore proposed amending the 
BSAI FMP with Amendment 106 to the BSAI FMP. The Council and NMFS 
concluded that the GOA FMP was consistent with the amended AFA and 
therefore proposed no change to the GOA FMP.
    Alternative 2 would change the BSAI FMP and implementing 
regulations to allow the owners of AFA vessels to participate in the 
BSAI with a rebuilt or replacement vessel without limit on the length, 
tonnage, or horsepower of the rebuilt or replacement vessel. 
Alternative 2 continues all the restrictions currently in place on 
participation by AFA vessels in the GOA, including the requirement that 
an AFA vessel may not participate in the GOA unless the vessel has an 
LLP license and the vessel does not exceed the MLOA on that license. 
The Council selected Alternative 2 as its preferred alternative.
    Alternatives 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, and 2.4 would have imposed additional 
restrictions on participation by AFA rebuilt and replacement vessels in 
the GOA, in addition to restrictions in current regulations (Analysis, 
Executive Summary). Alternative 2.1 stated that an AFA rebuilt and 
replacement vessel that is subject to sideboards could not participate 
in the GOA if the vessel exceeded the most restrictive MLOA on any GOA 
LLP license assigned to the vessel at the time that the vessel owner 
applied to NMFS to replace or rebuild the AFA vessel. Alternative 2.2 
stated that an AFA rebuilt or replacement vessel that is subject to 
sideboards could not participate in the GOA if the vessel exceeded the 
most restrictive MLOA on any GOA LLP license assigned to the vessel on 
October 15, 2010, the date of passage of the Coast Guard Act. 
Alternative 2.3 stated that an AFA rebuilt or replacement vessel that 
is subject to sideboards could not participate in the GOA if the AFA 
rebuilt or replacement vessel was greater than 10 percent over the 
length, tonnage, or horsepower of the vessel on October 15, 2010. 
Alternative 2.4 stated that an AFA rebuilt or replacement vessel that 
is not subject to sideboards could not exceed the MLOA on any GOA LLP 
license assigned to the vessel on October 15, 2010.
    Section 208(g)(2) of the amended AFA expressly gave the Council the 
authority to adopt conservation and management measures to ensure that 
the AFA amendments did not diminish the effectiveness of the fishery 
management plans for the Bering Sea or GOA. Alternatives 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 
and 2.4 were the alternatives analyzed by the Council under section 
208(g)(2).
    As to which alternative achieves the objectives of the amended AFA, 
Alternatives 2, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, and 2.4 all expand the ability of the 
owners of AFA vessels to rebuild or replace AFA vessels over the 
original AFA. However, Alternative 2 best achieves the objective

[[Page 34710]]

of the AFA amendments because the objective of the AFA amendments was 
to impose additional restrictions on the rebuilding and replacement of 
AFA vessels only if the additional restrictions were necessary to 
protect the fishery management plans of the BSAI or GOA. The Council 
did not recommend additional restrictions in either the BSAI or GOA.
    As to which alternative minimizes the adverse economic impact on 
small entities, the Analysis concluded that no AFA vessels are small 
entities. Therefore none of the alternatives directly regulates small 
entities and none of the alternatives minimize the adverse economic 
impacts on small entities.
    But assuming for the purposes of analysis that the owners of AFA 
vessels are small entities, Alternative 2 is the alternative that 
minimizes the potential adverse economic impacts on the owners of AFA 
vessels. The reason is that Alternative 2 would allow the owners of AFA 
vessels to rebuild and replace their vessels without any restrictions 
on their ability to rebuild and replace vessels beyond the restrictions 
required by the AFA amendments. Alternative 2 allows the owners of AFA 
vessels to rebuild and replace their vessels if the vessel owners 
conclude that the improved safety and efficiency of the rebuilt or 
replacement vessel warrants the cost of rebuilding or replacing the 
vessel.

Collection-of-Information Requirements

    This proposed rule contains collection-of-information requirements 
subject to review and approval by the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). NMFS has submitted these 
requirements to OMB for approval under OMB Control Number 0648-0393. 
The public reporting burden for ``American Fisheries Act (AFA) Permit: 
Rebuilt, Replacement, or Removed Vessel Application'' is estimated to 
average 2 hours per response. This estimate includes the time for 
reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and 
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the 
collection-of-information.
    Public comment is sought regarding whether this proposed collection 
of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions 
of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical 
utility; the accuracy of the burden estimate; ways to enhance the 
quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and 
ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information, including 
through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of 
information technology. Send comments on these or any other aspects of 
the collection of information to NMFS at the ADDRESSES above, 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, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty 
for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the 
requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays 
a currently valid OMB control number. All currently approved NOAA 
collections of information may be viewed at: https://www.cio.noaa.gov/services_programs/prasubs.html.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 679

    Alaska, Fisheries, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: June 10, 2014.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 679 is 
proposed to be amended as follows:

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

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

    Authority:  16 U.S.C. 773 et seq.; 1801 et seq.; 3631 et seq.; 
Pub. L. 108-447; Pub. L. 111-281.
* * * * *
0
2. In Sec.  679.2,
0
a. Revise the definition of ``AFA mothership;'' and
0
b. Add definitions for ``AFA rebuilt vessel,'' ``AFA replacement 
vessel,'' and ``AFA vessel'' in alphabetical order, and add paragraph 
(2)(vi) to the definition of ``Maximum LOA (MLOA)'' to read as follows:


Sec.  679.2  Definitions.

* * * * *
    AFA mothership means a mothership permitted to process BS pollock 
under Sec.  679.4(l)(4).
* * * * *
    AFA rebuilt vessel means an AFA vessel that was rebuilt after 
October 15, 2010.
    AFA replacement vessel means a vessel that NMFS designated on an 
AFA permit pursuant to Sec.  679.4(l)(7) after October 15, 2010.
    AFA vessel means a vessel that is designated on an AFA catcher 
vessel permit, an AFA catcher/processor permit, or an AFA mothership 
permit, and is thereby authorized to participate in the Bering Sea 
directed pollock fishery.
* * * * *
    Maximum LOA (MLOA) means: * * *
    (2) * * *
    (vi) An AFA vessel is exempt from the MLOA on an LLP license with a 
Bering Sea area endorsement or an Aleutian Islands area endorsement 
when the vessel is used in the BSAI to harvest or process license 
limitation groundfish and the LLP license specifies an exemption from 
the MLOA restriction for the AFA vessel.
* * * * *
    3. In Sec.  679.4,
    a. Remove paragraphs (a)(1)(iii)(F), (l)(4) introductory text, and 
(l)(8)(iv);
    b. Redesignate paragraphs (l)(2)(iii) as (l)(2)(iv) and (l)(8)(v) 
as (l)(8)(iv);
    c. Revise paragraphs (k)(1)(i), (k)(3)(i)(A), (l)(1)(ii)(B), 
(l)(3)(i)(A)(2), (l)(3)(i)(B)(2), (l)(3)(i)(C)(2)(ii), (l)(4)(i), 
(l)(6)(ii)(C)(3), (l)(6)(ii)(D) introductory text, (l)(7), (l)(8)(i), 
(l)(8)(ii), (l)(8)(iii), and (o)(4)(i)(D); and
    d. Add paragraphs (k)(3)(i)(E), (l)(2)(iii), (l)(3)(i)(A)(3), 
(l)(3)(i)(B)(3), (l)(3)(i)(C)(3), (l)(3)(ii)(E)(3), (1)(6)(ii)(D)(3), 
and (l)(6)(ii)(D)(4) to read as follows:


Sec.  679.4  Permits.

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

[[Page 34711]]

the license specifies that the vessel is exempt from the MLOA on the 
license.
* * * * *
    (E) Exemption from MLOA on an LLP license with a Bering Sea area 
endorsement or an Aleutian Islands area endorsement for AFA rebuilt or 
AFA replacement vessels. An AFA rebuilt vessel or an AFA replacement 
vessel may exceed the MLOA on an LLP groundfish license with a Bering 
Sea area endorsement or an Aleutian Islands area endorsement when the 
vessel is conducting directed fishing for groundfish in the BSAI 
pursuant to that LLP groundfish license and when the exemption is 
specified on the LLP license.
* * * * *
    (l) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (B) Duration of final AFA permits. (1) Except as provided in 
paragraphs (l)(1)(ii)(B)(2), (l)(1)(ii)(B)(3), (l)(5)(v)(B)(3), and 
(l)(6)(iii) of this section, AFA vessel and processor permits issued 
under this paragraph (l) are valid indefinitely unless the permit is 
suspended or revoked.
    (2) An AFA vessel permit is revoked when the vessel designated on 
the permit is replaced or removed under paragraph (l)(7) of this 
section.
    (3) In the event of a total loss or constructive loss of an AFA 
vessel,
    (i) The AFA vessel permit that designates the lost AFA vessel will 
be valid from the date of the vessel loss up to 3 years from December 
31 of the year in which the vessel was lost and will be suspended after 
that date, unless the AFA vessel permit for the lost vessel was revoked 
before that date because the lost vessel was replaced or removed under 
paragraph (l)(7) of this section. For example, if a vessel sinks on 
February 15, 2016, the AFA permit on the vessel will be valid until 
December 31, 2019, unless the owner of the vessel replaces or removes 
the vessel before December 31, 2019; after December 31, 2019, the AFA 
permit on the lost vessel will be suspended until the AFA vessel owner 
replaces or removes the lost vessel;
    (ii) The owner of the lost AFA vessel must notify NMFS in writing 
of the vessel loss within 120 days of the date of the total loss or 
constructive loss of the vessel;
    (iii) For purposes of paragraph (l)(1)(ii)(B)(3) of this section, 
an AFA lost vessel is a vessel that has been subject to a total loss or 
a constructive loss; a total loss means that the vessel is physically 
lost such as from sinking or a fire; a constructive loss means that the 
vessel suffered damage so that the cost of repairing the vessel 
exceeded the value of the vessel; the date of the total loss of a 
vessel is the date on which the physical loss occurred; the date of the 
constructive loss of a vessel is the date on which the damage to the 
vessel occurred.
* * * * *
    (2) * * *
    (iii) AFA replacement vessels. (A) NMFS will issue a listed AFA 
catcher/processor permit to the owner of a catcher/processor that is a 
replacement vessel for a vessel that was designated on a listed AFA 
catcher/processor permit.
    (B) NMFS will issue an unlisted AFA catcher/processor permit to the 
owner of a catcher/processor that is a replacement vessel for a vessel 
that was designated on an unlisted AFA catcher/processor permit.
* * * * *
    (3) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (A) * * *
    (2) Is not listed in paragraph (l)(3)(i)(A)(1) of this section and 
is determined by the Regional Administrator to have delivered at least 
250 mt and at least 75 percent of the pollock it harvested in the 
directed BSAI pollock fishery in 1997 to catcher/processors for 
processing by the offshore component; or
    (3) Is an AFA replacement vessel for a vessel that was designated 
on an AFA catcher vessel permit with a catcher/processor endorsement.
    (B) * * *
    (2) Is not listed in paragraph (l)(3)(i)(B)(1) of this section and 
is determined by the Regional Administrator to have delivered at least 
250 mt of pollock for processing by motherships in the offshore 
component of the BSAI directed pollock fishery in any one of the years 
1996 or 1997, or between January 1, 1998, and September 1, 1998, and is 
not eligible for an endorsement to deliver pollock to catcher/
processors under paragraph (l)(3)(i)(A) of this section; or
    (3) Is an AFA replacement vessel for a vessel that was designated 
on an AFA catcher vessel permit with a mothership endorsement.
    (C) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (ii) Is less than 60 ft (18.1 meters) LOA and is determined by the 
Regional Administrator to have delivered at least 40 mt of pollock 
harvested in the directed BSAI pollock fishery for processing by the 
inshore component in any one of the years 1996 or 1997, or between 
January 1, 1998, and September 1, 1998; or
    (3) Is an AFA replacement vessel for a vessel that was designated 
on an AFA catcher vessel permit with an inshore endorsement.
    (E) * * *
    (3) AFA replacement vessel for a catcher vessel that qualified for 
an exemption. A catcher vessel that is a replacement vessel for a 
vessel that was designated on an AFA catcher vessel permit with an 
exemption from a groundfish sideboard directed fishing closure will 
receive an AFA catcher vessel permit with the same exemption as the 
replaced vessel.
    (4) * * *
    (i) NMFS will issue to an owner of a mothership an AFA mothership 
permit if the mothership:
    (A) Is one of the following (as listed in paragraphs 208(d)(1) 
through (3) of the AFA):
    EXCELLENCE (USCG documentation number 967502);
    GOLDEN ALASKA (USCG documentation number 651041); and
    OCEAN PHOENIX (USCG documentation number 296779); or
    (B) Is an AFA replacement vessel for a vessel that was designated 
on an AFA mothership permit.
* * * * *
    (6) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (C) * * *
    (3) Each catcher vessel in the cooperative is a qualified catcher 
vessel and is otherwise eligible to fish for groundfish in the BSAI, 
except that a lost vessel that retains an AFA permit pursuant to 
paragraph (l)(1)(ii)(B)(3) of this section need not be designated on a 
Federal Fisheries Permit or an LLP license; has an AFA catcher vessel 
permit with an inshore endorsement; and has no permit sanctions or 
other type of sanctions against it that would prevent it from fishing 
for groundfish in the BSAI.
    (D) Qualified catcher vessels. For the purpose of paragraph 
(l)(6)(ii)(C)(3) of this section, a catcher vessel is a qualified 
catcher vessel if the catcher vessel meets the permit and landing 
requirements in paragraphs (l)(6)(ii)(D)(1) and (l)(6)(ii)(D)(2) of 
this section; the catcher vessel is an AFA replacement catcher vessel 
that meets the requirements in paragraph (l)(6)(ii)(D)(3) of this 
section; or the catcher vessel is an AFA lost catcher vessel that meets 
the requirements in paragraph (l)(6)(ii)(D)(4) of this section.
* * * * *
    (3) AFA replacement catcher vessels. The vessel is an AFA 
replacement vessel for a catcher vessel that met the permit and landing 
requirements in

[[Page 34712]]

paragraphs (l)(6)(ii)(D)(1) and (l)(6)(ii)(D)(2) of this section;
    (4) AFA lost catcher vessels. In the event of a total loss or 
constructive loss of an AFA catcher vessel with an inshore endorsement, 
the owner of the lost vessel has an AFA catcher vessel permit with an 
inshore endorsement for the lost vessel that is valid pursuant to 
paragraph (l)(1)(ii)(B)(3) of this section, and the inshore cooperative 
shows:
    (i) The vessel was lost during a year when the vessel was 
designated on an AFA inshore cooperative fishing permit issued to the 
cooperative submitting the application; or
    (ii) The vessel was lost during a year when the vessel was not 
designated on any AFA inshore cooperative fishing permit and when the 
vessel delivered more pollock to the AFA inshore processor designated 
by the inshore cooperative under paragraph (l)(6)(ii)(B) of this 
section than to any other processor; or
    (iii) The vessel was lost during a year when the vessel was not 
designated on any AFA inshore cooperative fishing permit and when the 
vessel had made no deliveries of pollock and the owner of the lost 
vessel has assigned the catch history of the lost vessel to the inshore 
cooperative that submits the application.
* * * * *
    (7) AFA rebuilt vessels, AFA replacement vessels, and removal of 
inshore AFA catcher vessels--(i) AFA rebuilt vessels. (A) To improve 
vessel safety or to improve operational efficiency, including fuel 
efficiency, the owner of an AFA vessel may rebuild the vessel. If the 
owner of an AFA vessel rebuilds the vessel, the owner must notify NMFS 
within 30 days of the issuance of the vessel documentation for the AFA 
rebuilt vessel and must provide NMFS with a copy of the vessel 
documentation for the rebuilt vessel. If the owner of the AFA rebuilt 
vessel provides NMFS with information demonstrating that the AFA 
rebuilt vessel is documented with a fishery endorsement issued under 46 
U.S.C. 12113, NMFS will acknowledge receipt of the notification and 
inform the owner that the AFA permit issued to the vessel before 
rebuilding is valid and can be used on the AFA rebuilt vessel.
    (B) Except as provided in paragraph (l)(7)(i)(C) and paragraph 
(l)(7)(i)(D) of this section, the owner of an AFA rebuilt vessel will 
be subject to the same requirements that applied to the vessel before 
rebuilding and will be eligible to use the AFA rebuilt vessel in the 
same manner as the vessel before rebuilding.
    (C) An AFA rebuilt vessel is exempt from the maximum length overall 
(MLOA) restriction on an LLP groundfish license with a Bering Sea area 
endorsement or an Aleutian Islands area endorsement when the AFA 
rebuilt vessel is conducting directed fishing for groundfish in the 
BSAI pursuant to that LLP groundfish license and the LLP groundfish 
license specifies the exemption.
    (D) If an AFA rebuilt catcher vessel is equal to or greater than 
125 ft (38.1 m) LOA, the AFA rebuilt catcher vessel will be subject to 
the catcher vessel exclusive fishing seasons for pollock in 50 CFR 
679.23(i) and will not be exempt from 50 CFR 679.23(i) even if the 
vessel before rebuilding was less than 125 ft (38.1 m) LOA and was 
exempt from 50 CFR 679.23(i).
    (ii) AFA replacement vessels. (A) To improve vessel safety or to 
improve operational efficiency, including fuel efficiency, the owner of 
an AFA vessel may replace the AFA vessel with a vessel that is 
documented with a fishery endorsement issued under 46 U.S.C. 12113.
    (B) Upon approval of an application to replace an AFA vessel 
pursuant to paragraph (l)(7) of this section and except as provided in 
paragraph (l)(7)(ii)(C), paragraph (l)(7)(ii)(D), and paragraph 
(l)(7)(E) of this section, the owner of an AFA replacement vessel will 
be subject to the same requirements that applied to the replaced vessel 
and will be eligible to use the AFA replacement vessel in the same 
manner as the replaced vessel. If the AFA replacement vessel is not 
already designated on an AFA permit, the Regional Administrator will 
issue an AFA permit to the owner of the AFA replacement vessel. The AFA 
permit that designated the replaced, or former, AFA vessel will be 
revoked.
    (C) An AFA replacement vessel is exempt from the maximum length 
overall (MLOA) restriction on an LLP groundfish license with a Bering 
Sea area endorsement or an Aleutian Islands area endorsement when the 
AFA replacement vessel is conducting directed fishing for groundfish in 
the BSAI pursuant to that LLP groundfish license and the LLP groundfish 
license specifies an exemption from the MLOA restriction for the AFA 
replacement vessel.
    (D) If an AFA replacement catcher vessel is equal to or greater 
than 125 ft (38.1 m) LOA, the AFA replacement catcher vessel will be 
subject to the catcher vessel exclusive fishing seasons for pollock in 
50 CFR 679.23(i) and will not be exempt from 50 CFR 679.23(i), even if 
the replaced vessel was less than 125 ft (38.1 m) LOA and was exempt 
from 50 CFR 679.23(i).
    (E) An AFA replacement catcher vessel for an AFA catcher vessel 
will have the same sideboard exemptions, if any, as the replaced AFA 
catcher vessel, except that if the AFA replacement vessel was already 
designated on an AFA permit as exempt from sideboard limits, the AFA 
replacement vessel will maintain its exemption even if the replaced 
vessel was not exempt from sideboard limits.
    (iii) Removal of AFA catcher vessel from the directed pollock 
fishery. (A) The owner of a catcher vessel that is designated on an AFA 
catcher vessel permit with an inshore endorsement may remove the 
catcher vessel from the directed pollock fishery, subject to the 
requirements in paragraphs (B), (C), (D), and (E) of this paragraph 
(l)(7)(iii).
    (B) The owner of the removed catcher vessel must direct NMFS to 
assign the non-CDQ inshore pollock catch history in the BSAI of the 
removed vessel to one or more catcher vessels in the inshore fishery 
cooperative to which the removed vessel belonged at the time of the 
application for removal.
    (C) Except for the assignment of the pollock catch history of the 
removed catcher vessel in paragraph (l)(7)(iii)(B) of this section, all 
claims relating to the catch history of the removed catcher vessel, 
including any claims to an exemption from AFA sideboard limitations, 
will be permanently extinguished upon NMFS' approval of the application 
to remove the catcher vessel and the AFA permit that was held by the 
owner of the removed catcher vessel will be revoked.
    (D) The catcher vessel or vessels that are assigned the catch 
history of the removed catcher vessel cannot be removed from the 
fishery cooperative to which the removed catcher vessel belonged for a 
period of one year from the date that NMFS assigned the catch history 
of the removed catcher vessel to that vessel or vessels.
    (iv) Replaced vessels and removed vessels. An AFA vessel that is 
replaced or removed under paragraph (l)(7) of this section is 
permanently ineligible to receive any permit to participate in any 
fishery in the Exclusive Economic Zone off Alaska unless the replaced 
or removed vessel reenters the directed pollock fishery as a 
replacement vessel under paragraph (l)(7) of this section.
    (v) Application. To notify NMFS that the owner of an AFA vessel has 
rebuilt the AFA vessel, the owner of the AFA vessel must submit a 
complete application. To replace an AFA vessel with another vessel, 
NMFS must receive a complete application from the owner of the vessel 
that is being replaced. To remove an AFA catcher vessel from the

[[Page 34713]]

directed pollock fishery, NMFS must receive a complete application from 
the owner of the vessel that is to be removed. An application must 
contain the information specified on the application form, with all 
required fields accurately completed and all required documentation 
attached. The application must be submitted to NMFS using the methods 
described on the application. The application referred to in this 
paragraph is ``American Fisheries Act (AFA) Permit: Rebuilt, 
Replacement, or Removed Vessel Application.''
    (8) * * *
    (i) Initial evaluation. The Regional Administrator will evaluate an 
application submitted in accord with paragraph (l) of this section. If 
the Regional Administrator determines that the applicant meets the 
requirements for NMFS to take the action requested on the application, 
NMFS will approve the application. If the Regional Administrator 
determines that the applicant has submitted claims based on 
inconsistent information or fails to submit the information specified 
in the application, the applicant will be provided a single 30-day 
evidentiary period to submit evidence to establish that the applicant 
meets the requirements for NMFS to take the requested action. The 
burden is on the applicant to establish that the applicant meets the 
criteria in the regulation for NMFS to take the action requested by the 
applicant.
    (ii) Additional information and evidence. The Regional 
Administrator will evaluate the additional information or evidence 
submitted by the applicant within the 30-day evidentiary period. If the 
Regional Administrator determines that the additional information or 
evidence meets the applicant's burden of proof, the application will be 
approved. However, if the Regional Administrator determines that the 
applicant did not meet the applicant's burden of proof, the applicant 
will be notified by an initial administrative determination (IAD) that 
the application is denied.
    (iii) Initial administrative determinations (IAD). The Regional 
Administrator will prepare and send an IAD to the applicant following 
the expiration of the 30-day evidentiary period if the Regional 
Administrator determines that the information or evidence provided by 
the applicant fails to support the applicant's claims and is 
insufficient to establish that the applicant meets the requirements for 
an AFA permit or for NMFS to approve the withdrawal of a catcher 
vessel, or if the additional information, evidence, or revised 
application is not provided within the time period specified in the 
letter that notifies the applicant of the applicant's 30-day 
evidentiary period. The IAD will indicate the deficiencies in the 
application, including any deficiencies with the information, the 
evidence submitted in support of the information, or the revised 
application. An applicant who receives an IAD may appeal under the 
appeals procedures set out at 15 CFR part 906.
* * * * *
    (o) * * *
    (4) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (D) The replacement vessel is not a vessel listed at section 
208(e)(1) through (20) of the American Fisheries Act or permitted under 
paragraph (l)(2)(i) of this section; is not an AFA replacement vessel 
designated on a listed AFA catcher/processor permit under paragraph 
(l)(2)of this section; and is not an AFA catcher vessel permitted under 
paragraph (l)(3) of this section.
* * * * *
    4. In Sec.  679.7, revise paragraphs (i)(6), (k)(1)(ii), 
(k)(1)(iii), (k)(1)(iv), (k)(1)(v), (k)(1)(vi)(A) heading, 
(k)(1)(vi)(B) heading, (k)(1)(vii)(A) heading, (k)(1)(vii)(B) heading, 
and (k)(2)(ii) to read as follows:


Sec.  679.7  Prohibitions.

* * * * *
    (i) * * *
    (6) Use a vessel to fish for LLP groundfish or crab species, or 
allow a vessel to be used to fish for LLP groundfish or crab species, 
that has an LOA that exceeds the MLOA specified on the license that 
authorizes fishing for LLP groundfish or crab species, except if the 
person is using the vessel to fish for LLP groundfish in the Bering Sea 
subarea or the Aleutian Islands subarea pursuant to an LLP license that 
specifies an exemption from the MLOA on the LLP license.
* * * * *
    (k) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii) Fishing in the GOA. Use a listed AFA catcher/processor or a 
catcher/processor designated on a listed AFA catcher/processor permit 
to harvest any species of fish in the GOA.
    (iii) Processing BSAI crab. Use a listed AFA catcher/processor or a 
catcher/processor designated on a listed AFA catcher/processor permit 
to process any crab species harvested in the BSAI.
    (iv) Processing GOA groundfish. (A) Use a listed AFA catcher/
processor or a catcher/processor designated on a listed AFA catcher/
processor permit to process any pollock harvested in a directed pollock 
fishery in the GOA and any groundfish harvested in Statistical Area 630 
of the GOA.
    (B) Use a listed AFA catcher/processor or a catcher/processor 
designated on a listed AFA catcher/processor permit as a stationary 
floating processor for Pacific cod in the GOA and a catcher/processor 
in the GOA during the same year.
    (v) Directed fishing after a sideboard closure. Use a listed AFA 
catcher/processor or a catcher/processor designated on a listed AFA 
catcher/processor permit to engage in directed fishing for a groundfish 
species or species group in the BSAI after the Regional Administrator 
has issued an AFA catcher/processor sideboard directed fishing closure 
for that groundfish species or species group under Sec.  
679.20(d)(1)(iv) or Sec.  679.21(e)(3)(v).
    (vi) * * *
    (A) Listed AFA catcher/processors and catcher/processors designated 
on listed AFA catcher/processor permits. * * *
    (B) Unlisted AFA catcher/processors and catcher/processors 
designated on unlisted AFA catcher/processor permits. * * *
    (vii) * * *
    (A) Listed AFA catcher/processors and catcher/processors designated 
on listed AFA catcher/processor permits. * * *
    (B) Unlisted AFA catcher/processors and catcher/processors 
designated on unlisted AFA catcher/processor permits. * * *
* * * * *
    (2) * * *
    (ii) Processing GOA groundfish. Use an AFA mothership as a 
stationary floating processor for Pacific cod in the GOA and a 
mothership in the GOA during the same year.
* * * * *
0
5. In Sec.  679.51, revise paragraphs (a)(2)(vi)(B)(1) and 
(a)(2)(vi)(B)(3) to read as follows:


Sec.  679.51  Observer requirements for vessels and plants.

    (a) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (vi) * * *
    (B) * * *
    (1) Listed AFA catcher/processors, catcher/processors designated on 
listed AFA catcher/processor permits, and AFA motherships. The owner or 
operator of a listed AFA catcher/processor, a catcher/processor 
designated on a listed AFA catcher/processor permit, or an AFA 
mothership must have aboard at least two observers, at least one of 
whom must be certified

[[Page 34714]]

as a lead level 2 observer, for each day that the vessel is used to 
catch, process, or receive groundfish. More than two observers must be 
aboard if the observer workload restriction would otherwise preclude 
sampling as required.
* * * * *
    (3) Unlisted AFA catcher/processors and catcher/processors 
designated on unlisted AFA catcher/processor permits. The owner or 
operator of an unlisted AFA catcher/processor or a catcher/processor 
designated on an unlisted AFA catcher/processor permit must have aboard 
at least two observers for each day that the vessel is used to engage 
in directed fishing for pollock in the BSAI, or receive pollock 
harvested in the BSAI. At least one observer must be certified as a 
lead level 2 observer. When a listed AFA catcher/processor is not 
engaged in directed fishing for BSAI pollock and is not receiving 
pollock harvested in the BSAI, the observer coverage requirements at 
paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this section apply.
* * * * *
0
6. In Sec.  679.62,
0
a. Redesignate paragraph (a)(2) as (a)(3) and paragraph (a)(3) as 
(a)(4); and
0
b. Add paragraph (a)(2) to read as follows:


Sec.  679.62  Inshore sector cooperative allocation program.

    (a) * * *
    (2) Determination of individual vessel catch histories after 
approval of replacement of catcher vessel and approval of removal of 
catcher vessel from the AFA directed pollock fishery.
    (i) If NMFS approves the application of an owner of a catcher 
vessel that is a member of an inshore vessel cooperative to replace a 
catcher vessel pursuant to Sec.  679.4(l)(7), NMFS will assign the AFA 
inshore pollock catch history of the replaced vessel to the replacement 
vessel.
    (ii) If NMFS approves the application of an owner of a catcher 
vessel that is a member of an inshore vessel cooperative to remove a 
catcher vessel from the AFA directed pollock fishery pursuant to Sec.  
679.4(l)(7), NMFS will assign the AFA inshore pollock catch history of 
the removed vessel to one or more vessels in the inshore vessel 
cooperative to which the removed vessel belonged as required by Sec.  
679.4(l)(7); NMFS will not assign the catch history for any non-pollock 
species of the removed vessel to any other vessel, and NMFS will 
permanently extinguish any exemptions from sideboards that were 
specified on the AFA permit of the removed vessel.
* * * * *
0
7. In Sec.  679.63,
0
a. Redesignate paragraph (c) as paragraph (d); and
0
b. Add paragraph (c) to read as follows:


Sec.  679.63  Catch weighing requirements for vessels and processors.

* * * * *
    (c) What are the requirements for AFA replacement vessels? The 
owner and operator of an AFA replacement vessel are subject to the 
catch weighing requirements and the observer sampling station 
requirements in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section that applied to 
the owner and operator of the replaced vessel.
* * * * *
0
8. In Sec.  679.64,
0
a. Revise paragraph (a) heading and introductory text, and paragraph 
(a)(1) heading; and
0
b. Add paragraphs (b)(2)(iii) and (b)(2)(iv) to read as follows:


Sec.  679.64  Harvesting sideboard limits in other fisheries.

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


Sec. Sec.  679.4 and 679.51   [Amended]

0
9. At each of the locations shown in the ``Location'' column, remove 
the phrase indicated in the ``Remove'' column and replace it with the 
phrase indicated in the ``Add'' column for the number of times 
indicated in the ``Frequency'' column.

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

[FR Doc. 2014-14012 Filed 6-17-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P