Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 14, 2009 / Proposed Rules 17137 

of this section, provided the vessel is in 

compliance with paragraphs (d) through 

(g) of this section. 

(d) Notification requirements. Vessels 

fishing under the exemptions specified 

in paragraph (b) and/or (c) of this 

section must notify the Regional 

Administrator in accordance with the 

provisions of § 648.10(e). 

* * * * * 

(g) Applicability of other provisions of 

this part. A vessel fishing under the 

exemptions provided by paragraphs (b) 

and/or (c) of this section remains subject 

to all other requirements of this part. 

[FR Doc. E9–8526 Filed 4–13–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 679 

[Docket No. 071102641–9595–03] 

RIN 0648–AR06 

Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic 

Zone Off Alaska; Revision of Single 

Geographic Location Requirement in 

the Bering Sea Subarea 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes regulations to 

increase the number of times per year 

that a stationary floating processor (SFP) 

that is qualified under the American 

Fisheries Act (AFA) may move within 

State of Alaska waters in the Bering Sea 

(BS) subarea to process pollock 

harvested in the BS subarea directed 

pollock fishery. This action also would 

require AFA SFPs to process all Gulf of 

Alaska (GOA) pollock and GOA Pacific 

cod where they processed these species 

in 2002. This action is necessary to 

increase operational flexibility for AFA 

SFPs that process pollock caught in the 

BS subarea directed fishery while 

continuing to limit the competitive 

advantage of AFA SFPs in the GOA 

pollock and GOA Pacific cod fisheries. 

This action is intended to promote the 

goals and objectives of the Magnuson– 

Stevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act, the Fishery 

Management Plans for Groundfish of the 

GOA and for Groundfish of the Bering 

Sea and Aleutian Islands Management 

Area, and other applicable laws. 

DATES: Comments on the proposed rule 

must be received no later than the close 

of business on May 29, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments to Sue 

Salveson, Assistant Regional 

Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries 

Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, Attn: 

Ellen Sebastian. You may submit 

comments, identified by ‘‘RIN 0648– 

AR06’’ by any one of the following 

methods: 

• Electronic Submissions: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

• Fax: 907–586–7557. 

• Mail: P. O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 

99802. 

• Hand delivery to the Federal 

Building: 709 West 9th Street, Room 

420A, Juneau, Alaska. 

All comments received are a part of 

the public record and will generally be 

posted to http://www.regulations.gov 

without change. All Personal Identifying 

Information (e.g., name, address) 

voluntarily submitted by the commenter 

may 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 

portable document file (pdf) formats 

only. 

Copies of the Environmental 

Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review 

(EA/RIR) prepared for this action are 

available from the NMFS Alaska Region 

website at http:// 

www.alaskafisheries.noaa.gov or from 

the mailing and street addresses listed 

above. 

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 and by e–mail to 

DavidlRostker@omb.eop.gov, or fax to 

202–395–7285. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Becky Carls, 907–586–7228. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS 

manages the groundfish fisheries in the 

exclusive economic zone of the Bering 

Sea and Aleutian Islands Management 

Area (BSAI) and the GOA under the 

Fishery Management Plans (FMPs) for 

groundfish in the respective areas. The 

North Pacific Fishery Management 

Council (Council) prepared, and NMFS 

approved, the FMPs under the authority 

of the Magnuson–Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

(Magnuson–Stevens Act), 16 U.S.C. 

1801 et seq. Regulations governing U.S. 

fisheries and implementing the FMPs 

appear at 50 CFR parts 600 and 679. 

Background and Need for Action 

The current single geographic location 

provisions apply to SFPs, which can be 

AFA or non–AFA qualified. An SFP, as 

defined at § 679.2, is a vessel of the 

United States operating as a processor in 

State of Alaska (State) waters that 

remains anchored or otherwise remains 

stationary in a single geographic 

location while receiving or processing 

groundfish harvested in the GOA or 

BSAI. There are two AFA SFPs that are 

the two largest SFPs operating in 

Alaska, and six AFA onshore 

processors. It is unlikely that there will 

be more AFA SFPs because the 

regulatory requirements to qualify as an 

AFA SFP are unlikely to be met by other 

entities. The two AFA SFPs are semi– 

permanently moored in protected 

anchorages in the Aleutian Islands less 

than 45 nautical miles (nm) (83 km) 

apart. The F/V Arctic Enterprise is 

located in Akutan Bay, and the F/V 

Northern Victor is located in Beaver 

Inlet. 

History of Single Geographic Location 

Provisions 

In 1992, the final rule implementing 

Amendment 18 to the BSAI FMP and 

Amendment 23 to the GOA FMP was 

published (57 FR 61326, December 24, 

1992). Under Amendments 18/23, the 

Council adopted resource allocations of 

BSAI and GOA pollock and GOA Pacific 

cod between inshore and offshore 

components in response to concerns of 

one component preempting another in 

harvesting the total allowable catch in 

those fisheries. Amendments 18/23 also 

established the single geographic 

location provisions for the inshore 

pollock processing sector to discourage 

offshore catcher/processors and 

motherships from entering the inshore 

sector. Any operational advantage over 

the shore–based processors due to the 

offshore processors’ mobility would be 

lost by being limited to one location. 

The prohibition on processing fish in 

more than a single geographic location 

applied on a fishing-year basis and only 

to vessels processing catch from target 

pollock and GOA Pacific cod fisheries. 

A processing vessel could leave the 

specified inshore fixed geographic 

location within State waters to process 

other species of groundfish. If, later, the 

processor was needed to process catch 

from target BSAI or GOA pollock or 

GOA Pacific cod fisheries, the 

processing vessel would first have to 

17138 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 14, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

return to its original location. The 

processing vessel was not required to 

return to the original location to process 

pollock or GOA Pacific cod taken as 

incidental catch, or to participate in any 

other fishery. The SFPs were allowed to 

change locations for processing pollock 

or GOA Pacific cod between fishing 

years. These provisions initially were 

set to expire on December 31, 1995. 

Subsequent extensions of the inshore/ 

offshore regulations made no 

substantive changes to the single 

geographic location provisions. 

Amendments 38/40 to the FMPs (60 FR 

63654, December 12, 1995) extended the 

single geographic location provisions to 

December 31, 1998. Amendments 51/51 

extended the single geographic location 

provisions through 2001. While 

Amendments 61/61 (described below) 

were under development, the single 

geographic location provisions were 

extended on an interim basis through 

several emergency interim rules 

beginning January 28, 2000 (65 FR 

4520). 

In December 2002, AFA provisions 

were implemented by the final rule for 

Amendments 61/61 (67 FR 79692, 

December 30, 2002). That rule revised 

SFP regulations to restrict any AFA SFP 

to processing BSAI pollock to a single 

geographic location in State waters 

during a fishing year. While the 

proposed rule for Amendments 61/61 

contained a December 31, 2004, sunset 

date for the AFA and inshore/offshore 

regulations, including the single 

geographic location provisions, that 

sunset date was removed under the final 

rule that implemented Amendments 61/ 

61. The December 31, 2004, sunset date 

was removed due to the passage of the 

Department of Commerce and Related 

Agencies Appropriations Act, 2002 

(Public Law 107–77, November 28, 

2001), Section 211 of title II which 

removed the December 31, 2004, sunset 

date for the AFA. 

Current and Proposed BS Subarea 

Single Geographic Location Provisions 

Current regulations limit AFA inshore 

processors, including AFA SFPs, to a 

single geographic location during a 

fishing year when processing pollock 

harvested in the BS subarea directed 

pollock fishery. The regulations further 

specify that a single geographic location 

for an AFA SFP is the location within 

State waters that is within 5 nm of the 

position in which the SFP first 

processed pollock harvested in the 

subarea directed pollock fishery during 

a fishing year. 

In conjunction with the Council’s 

consideration of Amendments 62/62, 

the Council considered a regulatory 

amendment submitted to the Council by 

industry in April 2001 to allow AFA 

SFPs to relocate in the BSAI during a 

fishing year for purposes of processing 

pollock in the BSAI. In April 2002, as 

part of its action under Amendments 

62/62, the Council adopted the 

following problem statement regarding 

the industry proposal: 

Existing regulations require AFA inshore 

floating processors to operate in a single 

geographic location, when processing BSAI 

targeted pollock. The result is a lack of 

flexibility and inefficient use of these 

facilities. The problem for the Council is to 

develop an FMP amendment to remove this 

restriction in the BSAI while providing 

continued protection for GOA groundfish 

processors. The Amendment should increase 

flexibility for these facilities to provide 

opportunities for reduced delivery costs and 

enhanced product quality while avoiding 

negative environmental impacts. 

Originally, two alternatives were 

considered by the Council. The no 

action or status quo alternative would 

continue to restrict AFA SFPs to a single 

geographic location during a fishing 

year while processing targeted BSAI 

pollock. The second alternative would 

allow AFA SFPs to change locations for 

processing targeted BSAI pollock from 

reporting week to reporting week 

without any limits on the number of 

location changes. Alternative 2 would 

maintain the single geographic location 

requirement but would reduce the 

relocation waiting period from one year 

to one week. 

None of the six onshore AFA 

processors expressed opposition to 

allowing the AFA SFPs to change 

location during the fishing year. 

However, representatives of some of the 

onshore processors expressed a 

preference that the number of location 

changes be kept to one or two per year. 

Most representatives of AFA onshore 

processors believe the AFA cooperative 

agreements have, by and large, 

addressed the concern over preemption 

of the BSAI pollock fishery, by assigning 

permanent allocations to each sector 

and participating cooperative. To 

address the concerns of AFA onshore 

processors, the Council added a third 

alternative that would limit the number 

of AFA SFP location changes to no more 

than four per fishing year. Additionally, 

the single geographic locations were 

limited to within State waters in only 

the BS subarea for the purpose of 

processing pollock harvested in a 

directed pollock fishery. 

Originally, the single geographic 

location restriction was implemented in 

the inshore/offshore regulations to 

prevent floating processors, which have 

some limited mobility and which 

operate in the inshore processing sector, 

from having an unfair economic 

advantage over operators of onshore 

processing plants. It was also intended 

to prevent offshore catcher/processors 

and motherships that have greater 

mobility, from entering the inshore 

sector. With the passage of the AFA, and 

the associated cooperative agreements, 

these concerns diminished in the BSAI 

pollock target fisheries. 

In October 2002, the Council took 

final action on the single geographic 

location provisions and chose 

Alternative 3 as its preferred alternative. 

That alternative allows any AFA SFP to 

change its location within State waters, 

from reporting week to reporting week, 

up to four times during a fishing year for 

processing pollock harvested in the BS 

subarea directed pollock fishery. In 

addition, under the preferred 

alternative, AFA inshore processors 

would be required to process all GOA 

pollock and GOA Pacific cod delivered 

to them in the same location at which 

they processed these species in 2002. 

Note that in the EA/RIR and this 

proposed rule, the term ‘‘AFA inshore 

processors’’ refers only to the AFA SFPs 

with which the action is concerned, 

rather than all AFA inshore processors 

which would include onshore 

processors. The Council took this action 

after receiving public testimony that the 

AFA inshore pollock allocation and 

associated fishing cooperatives reduced 

the need for restricting movement in the 

BSAI of these AFA SFPs. 

Rather than pertaining to the entire 

BSAI, the alternatives and analysis for 

the proposed action are limited to the 

BS subarea to reflect the Council’s 

preferred alternative that was restricted 

to the BS, and to reflect following 

Congressional action. In January 2004, 

Congress passed the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act of 2004 (Public Law 

108–199). Section 803 of the Act 

requires that future directed fishing 

allowances of pollock in the Aleutian 

Islands (AI) be allocated to the Aleut 

Corporation. The action states that only 

fishing vessels approved by the Aleut 

Corporation or its agents will be allowed 

to harvest this allowance. It is the 

Council’s and NMFS’s interpretation 

that Public Law 108–199 supersedes 

AFA provisions, including single 

geographic location requirements, in the 

AI. As a result, Amendment 82 (70 FR 

9856, March 1, 2005) revised AFA 

regulations to reflect that they were 

effective only in the BS. This proposed 

rule is written to reflect this 

Congressional action and the Council’s 

preferred alternative by limiting 

provisions to only the BS. 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 14, 2009 / Proposed Rules 17139 

The proposed changes to regulations 

at § 679.4(l)(5)(iii) would limit AFA 

inshore processors to processing pollock 

harvested in the BS subarea directed 

pollock fishery to only a single 

geographic location during a fishing 

week instead of a single geographic 

location in a fishing year. The 

regulations at § 679.4(l)(5)(iii)(B) would 

be revised to further specify that a single 

geographic location for an AFA SFP is 

(1) a position identified by fixed 

location, within State waters in the BS 

subarea at which an AFA SFP may 

process BS subarea pollock harvested in 

a BS subarea directed pollock fishery if 

the SFP does not change its location to 

process such pollock more than four 

times during a fishing year and (2) that 

the location is a geographic position that 

is within 5 nautical miles (nm) of the 

latitude and longitude reported in 

check–in and check–out reports that are 

required under regulations at 

§ 679.5(h)(5)(ix)(B). The regulations 

would no longer limit a single 

geographic location to the position 

where the AFA SFP first processed 

pollock harvested in a BS subarea 

directed pollock fishery during a fishing 

year. 

The proposed changes to the 

regulations at § 679.7(k)(3)(iv)(B) would 

change the single geographic location 

restriction on AFA SFPs for purposes of 

processing pollock harvested in a BS 

subarea directed pollock fishery from a 

single geographic location per fishing 

year to no more than four location 

changes within State waters in the BS. 

The proposed regulations would specify 

that no more than a single geographic 

location would be able to be used 

during a reporting week, and specifies a 

single geographic location as the 

geographic position that is within 5 nm 

of the latitude and longitude reported in 

check–in and check–out reports that are 

required under regulations at 

§ 679.5(h)(5)(ix)(B). As many as five 

different locations could be used, but 

the number of times that an AFA SFP 

may move to change its location for 

purposes of processing pollock 

harvested in a BS subarea directed 

pollock fishery would be limited to four. 

Current and Proposed GOA Single 

Geographic Location Provisions 

Current regulations at § 679.7(a)(7)(vi) 

prohibit all SFPs with a GOA inshore 

processing endorsement from 

processing pollock or GOA Pacific cod 

harvested in a directed fishery in more 

than a single geographic location during 

a fishing year. The proposed change to 

§ 679.7(a)(7)(vi) would apply solely to 

AFA SFPs; the current requirements 

would remain unchanged for non–AFA 

SFPs. 

This action would require AFA SFPs 

to process all GOA pollock and all GOA 

Pacific cod in the same geographic 

location where they processed these 

species in 2002. These new regulations 

would appear at § 679.7(k)(3)(vii). This 

proposed restriction is intended to 

reduce the potential for these mobile 

AFA SFPs to take advantage of 

increased flexibility for processing 

locations in the BS subarea and receive 

and process a larger share of GOA 

pollock or GOA Pacific cod compared 

with the status quo in 2002, the year 

that Council action was taken. Pacific 

cod or pollock harvested in the GOA 

also are processed by other inshore 

processing operations. Without this 

restriction on AFA SFPs, other inshore 

processing operations would not be 

protected from the competitive 

advantage that could result from 

increased mobility of the AFA SFPs. 

The Council did not intend to 

increase the operational flexibility of the 

AFA SFPs in the GOA pollock and GOA 

Pacific cod fisheries under this action. 

Therefore, the Council acted to restrict 

the AFA SFPs to processing GOA 

pollock and GOA Pacific cod to the 

location at which they processed these 

species in 2002. Without this restriction 

the AFA SFPs could have a significant 

competitive advantage over the non– 

AFA SFPs or other GOA inshore 

processors. For example, the AFA SFPs 

could process GOA pollock or GOA 

Pacific cod at a single geographic 

location in the GOA, move to the BS 

subarea to process BS subarea directed 

pollock in up to five locations, and then 

return to the GOA for further processing 

of GOA pollock or GOA Pacific cod. If 

a year later than 2002 were selected, the 

AFA SFPs could have moved to a 

potentially more advantageous location 

for processing GOA species. By 

selecting 2002, the Council would 

maintain the status quo for these 

fisheries that was in place when the 

Council took final action on these single 

geographic location provisions, 

enhancing stability in the GOA pollock 

and GOA Pacific cod fisheries. The 

Council’s action would continue 

protection, currently provided under 

regulations at § 679.7(a)(7)(vi), for the 

other inshore processing operations in 

these regulated fisheries from the 

potentially improved access of AFA 

SFPs to GOA Pacific cod and GOA 

pollock. 

Likely Effects of Single Geographic 

Location Changes 

It is not possible to provide detailed 

cost of production data for the two 

affected SFPs, due to federal and State 

confidentiality constraints. Accordingly, 

the likely effects of this proposed action 

are based primarily on qualitative 

information rather than quantitative 

data. The manner in which companies 

owning the two AFA SFPs may choose 

to change their operation, should this 

proposed rule be approved, is not 

known. A representative of one of these 

companies indicated that his firm had 

no current plans to move its processor. 

A representative from the other 

company indicated that company may 

consider moving the processor after the 

first BS subarea pollock fishing season, 

but that specific plans had not yet been 

determined. Thus, any future impacts 

are highly speculative. 

The EA/RIR prepared for this action 

determined that this proposed rule has 

the potential to reduce an operational 

restriction on two AFA SFPs. Current 

AFA regulations requiring an SFP to 

operate in a single geographic location 

when processing BS subarea pollock 

restrict flexibility and efficient use of 

these facilities when receiving pollock 

from some BS subarea locations. Costs 

of transit time for the catcher vessels 

delivering to the two AFA SFPs and 

associated decline in pollock product 

quality over longer transit periods may 

be reduced if the existing restrictions 

were relaxed and those processors 

choose to operate in areas closer to 

possible concentrations of pollock than 

their current locations in Beaver Inlet 

and Akutan, Alaska. This proposed rule 

would likely increase operational 

flexibility for these facilities and for the 

associated catcher vessels, and provide 

opportunities for reduced delivery costs, 

potentially increased time available to 

fish, and enhanced product quality. 

This situation, should it occur, would 

most likely be during the second BS 

subarea pollock fishing season, and 

involve operations in St. Paul in the 

Pribilof Islands. It is not likely that 

either company would choose to operate 

away from the major concentrations of 

pollock near Unimak Pass during the 

first BS subarea pollock fishing season. 

The magnitude of these potentially 

reduced operating costs for catcher 

vessels cannot be estimated, but the 

round trip travel time between the 

current AFA SFP locations and St. Paul 

is estimated to be 50 hours. 

Allowing the two AFA SFPs to 

relocate during the fishing season has 

the potential to add greater operational 

flexibility for their respective companies 

to deal with regulatory changes to 

protect Steller sea lions or other time/ 

area closures that may occur in the 

future. Their respective cooperatives 

may benefit from this flexibility should 

17140 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 14, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

stocks of pollock move northward in the 

BS subarea due to changing 

environmental conditions in the BS. 

Relocating would impose a financial 

cost, but the moves would be entirely 

voluntary. In the time since the AFA 

was enacted, the F/V Northern Victor 

has been located in Beaver Inlet, south 

of Unalaska; the F/V Arctic Enterprise 

moved one time, in 2000, from Beaver 

Inlet to Akutan Bay. Because there have 

been few changes in processing 

locations by the AFA SFPs in the past, 

and because of the logistical and 

economic burden created by a 

relocation, it seems highly improbable 

that a maximum of four moves per year 

would pose a meaningful operational 

constraint in the foreseeable future. 

There are potential benefits to 

restricting the AFA SFPs to processing 

GOA pollock and GOA Pacific cod to 

the location at which they processed 

these species in 2002. This restriction 

would maintain the status quo for these 

fisheries that was in place when the 

Council took final action in 2002, 

enhancing stability in the GOA pollock 

and GOA Pacific cod fisheries. This 

proposed restriction is intended to 

mitigate the potential for these mobile 

AFA SFPs to take advantage of the 

flexibility with processing locations in 

the BS subarea and receive and process 

a larger share of GOA pollock or GOA 

Pacific cod than would other inshore 

processing operations under the status 

quo. While there would be an expense 

involved if an AFA SFP chose to return 

to its 2002 location for processing, the 

amount of GOA pollock and GOA 

Pacific cod processed by the AFA SFPs 

historically has been very minor. 

There are also potential impacts to 

entities beyond the AFA SFPs and their 

associated catcher vessels. There is the 

possibility that an AFA catcher vessel 

that is not a member of an AFA SFP’s 

cooperative may choose to deliver part 

of its ten percent non–specified 

cooperative allocation to that AFA SFP 

to benefit from reduced running time to 

and from the fishing grounds and from 

the associated increase in fishing time. 

For example, pollock harvested near St. 

Paul and delivered to an AFA SFP 

located in St. Paul harbor would have a 

substantially reduced delivery time 

compared to deliveries to these same 

facilities located in Akutan or near 

Dutch Harbor. 

There also may be regional impacts 

associated with AFA SFP location 

changes. Akutan would likely lose tax 

revenue generated from the local 1 

percent raw fish tax on landings 

processed by the AFA SFP if the SFP 

relocated to another location outside the 

community. In addition, Aleutians East 

Borough would likely lose a portion of 

the fish tax revenues they currently 

receive if either AFA SFP relocates to 

another location outside the Borough. 

However, communities near a new AFA 

SFP location may benefit from direct 

expenditures (e.g., food, fuel, 

transportation), indirect employment 

gains supported by an increased level of 

local economic activity, and an increase 

in fish tax revenues. Note that any 

localized increases in economic activity 

would not represent an overall net 

benefit to the Nation. Gains to the 

community to which the AFA SFP 

relocates would be offset by an 

equivalent reduction in economic 

activity in the community in which the 

SFP previously based its operation. 

A potential benefit to the BS subarea 

region would be the redirection of 

effluent from processing operations to 

other areas of State waters adjacent to 

the BS. This would reduce the impacts 

from fish processing effluent in any one 

particular area in which the AFA SFPs 

might operate. 

Benefits to the nation as a whole 

would include fresher, higher quality 

product for consumers and a reduction 

in fuel consumed by catcher vessels 

running between the AFA SFPs and the 

fishing grounds. Both of these benefits 

are attributable to the AFA SFPs being 

able to relocate closer to the fishing 

grounds. According to the EA/RIR 

analysis, this action would successfully 

avoid negative environmental impacts, 

fulfilling part of the problem statement 

as stated above. 

Recordkeeping and Reporting 

Existing regulations at § 679.5(h)(1) 

require the manager of an SFP to submit 

check–in and check–out reports prior to 

receiving or ceasing to receive or 

process groundfish. Check–in and 

check–out reports must be submitted to 

the Regional Administrator within the 

appropriate time limits when beginning 

and when ceasing processing activities. 

Under the proposed regulations, no 

more than a single geographic location 

could be used by an AFA SFP in a 

weekly reporting period. To monitor 

this provision, the current check–in 

report and check–out report table at 

§ 679.5(h)(4) would be amended by 

adding requirements for the manager of 

an AFA SFP to notify NMFS of a change 

in location by submitting a complete 

check–out report before changing 

location and a check–in report before 

receiving groundfish at the new 

location. The new location would be 

reported on the check–in report as 

currently required at § 679.5(h)(5)(ix)(B). 

Classification 

Pursuant to the Magnuson–Stevens 

Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator 

has determined that this proposed rule 

is consistent with the BSAI and GOA 

FMPs, other provisions of the 

Magnuson–Stevens Act, and other 

applicable law, subject to further 

consideration after public comment. 

This proposed rule has been determined 

to be not significant for purposes of 

Executive Order 12866. 

The Chief Counsel for Regulation of 

the Department of Commerce certified 

to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 

Small Business Administration (SBA) 

that this proposed rule, if adopted, 

would not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities as those terms are defined in the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act. 

Basis and purpose of rule 

The groundfish fisheries in the Exclusive 

Economic Zone off Alaska are managed 

under the Fishery Management Plan for 

Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska 

Management Area (GOA FMP), and the 

Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish in 

the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands 

Management Area (BSAI FMP). The North 

Pacific Fishery Management Council 

(Council) prepared the FMPs, under the 

authority of the Magnuson–Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act, 16 U.S.C. 

1801, et seq. Regulations implementing the 

FMPs appear at 50 CFR part 679. 

Under regulations implementing the 

American Fisheries Act (AFA), only two 

specific vessels may participate as SFPs in 

the BSAI pollock target fisheries. Under 

current regulations, these two SFPs are 

precluded from operating in more than one 

location (which must be within State of 

Alaska waters) during a fishing year while 

processing targeted pollock. The purpose of 

the proposed rule is to redefine the single 

geographic location rule for these two AFA 

SFPs. The proposed rule would restrict these 

AFA SFPs to a single geographic location, 

within State of Alaska waters, during each 

reporting week; but would allow the 

processors to change location from reporting 

week to reporting week, up to a maximum of 

four changes per calendar year. In addition, 

the two AFA SFPs would be required to 

process any GOA pollock, or GOA Pacific 

cod, or both, delivered to them, in the same 

location at which they processed these 

species in 2002. 

This action is necessary to increase the 

operational flexibility of AFA SFPs that 

process pollock caught in the Bering Sea 

subarea directed fishery while restricting 

them to the location in which they processed 

GOA pollock or GOA Pacific cod in 2002. 

The intended effect of this action is to reduce 

the cost of transporting Bering Sea subarea 

pollock from distant fishing grounds to an 

AFA SFP, and to improve the product quality 

resulting from reduced transit times. 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 14, 2009 / Proposed Rules 17141 

Factual Basis for the Certification 

Description and estimate of the number of 

small entities to which the rule applies 

No small entities would be directly 

regulated by the proposed rule. Only two 

AFA SFPs potentially would be directly 

regulated by the proposed change in the 

single geographic location regulations. Both 

of these processors would be considered 

‘‘large entities,’’ because they are part of AFA 

cooperatives (see NMFS Alaska Region 

website at http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/ram). 

Each AFA cooperative is considered to be a 

large entity under Small Business 

Administration (SBA) criteria, because each 

entity is believed to employ 500 or more 

persons, on a full–time, part–time, 

temporary, or other basis; and when each is 

taken in combination with all its affiliated 

operations, worldwide, has combined annual 

gross receipts in excess of $4.0 million. 

Description and estimate of economic 

impacts on small entities by entity size and 

industry 

Based upon the attached Regulatory Impact 

Review, the proposed action would not result 

in imposition of any adverse economic 

effects on any directly regulated small 

entities. The American Fishery Act Final 

Environmental Impact Statement/Regulatory 

Impact Review/ Final Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis, under Section 4.6, provides an 

extensive treatment of the potential impacts 

to small entities, from a range of alternatives 

that fully encompasses this action. Amending 

the regulations to allow AFA SFPs to process 

BSAI target pollock in more than one 

location during a single fishing year, would 

impose no known costs on any directly 

regulated small entities. Indeed, the only 

entities that are ‘‘directly regulated’’ by this 

action are ‘‘large’’, based on SBA criteria. 

Criteria used to evaluate whether the rule 

would impose impacts on a substantial 

number of small entities 

The SBA has established size criteria for all 

major industry sectors in the United States, 

including fish harvesting and fish processing 

businesses. A business involved in fish 

harvesting is a small business if it is 

independently owned and operated and not 

dominant in its field of operation (including 

its affiliates) and if it has combined annual 

gross receipts not in excess of $4.0 million 

for all its affiliated operations worldwide. A 

seafood processor is a small business if it is 

independently owned and operated, not 

dominant in its field of operation, and 

employs 500 or fewer persons on a full–time, 

part–time, temporary, or other basis, at all its 

affiliated operations worldwide. 

Only two entities, both AFA SFPs, are 

directly regulated by the proposed rule. Each 

AFA SFP is considered to be a large entity, 

because each employs 500 or more persons, 

on a full–time, part–time, temporary, or other 

basis when each is taken in combination with 

all its affiliated operations worldwide. 

Therefore, no small entities would be directly 

regulated by this proposed rule. 

Criteria used to evaluate whether the rule 

would impose ‘‘significant economic 

impacts’’ 

Because no small entities are directly 

regulated by the proposed rule, no criteria 

were applied. 

Description of, and an explanation of the 

basis for, assumptions used 

SFP size determinations were based on 

known cooperative affiliations, ownership 

structure, and anecdotal information about 

each SFP’s employee numbers. 

As a result, an initial regulatory 

flexibility analysis is not required and 

none has been prepared. 

This proposed rule contains 

collection–of–information requirements 

subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act 

(PRA) and which have been approved 

by OMB under Control Number 0648– 

0213. Public reporting burden for the 

shoreside processor check–in and 

check–out reports is estimated to 

average ten minutes 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. Send comments 

regarding this burden estimate, or any 

other aspect of this data collection, 

including suggestions for reducing the 

burden, to NMFS (see ADDRESSES) and 

by e–mail to 

DavidlRostker@omb.eop.gov, or fax to 

202–395–7285. 

Notwithstanding any other provision 

of the law, no person is required to 

respond to, and no person shall be 

subject to penalty for failure to comply 

with, a collection of information subject 

to the requirements of the PRA, unless 

that collection of information displays a 

currently valid OMB control number. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 679 

Alaska, Fisheries, Recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements. 

Dated: April 8, 2009. 

John Oliver, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator for 

Operations, 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 

1. The authority citation for 50 CFR 

part 679 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 773 et seq.; 1801 et 

seq.; 3631 et seq.; Pub. L. 108–447. 

2. In § 679.4, revise paragraphs 

(l)(5)(iii) introductory text and 

(l)(5)(iii)(B) to read as follows: 

§ 679.4 Permits. 

* * * * * 

(l) * * * 

(5) * * * 

(iii) Single geographic location 

requirement. An AFA inshore processor 

permit authorizes the processing of 

pollock harvested in the BS subarea 

directed pollock fishery only in a single 

geographic location during a reporting 

week. For the purposes of this 

paragraph, single geographic location 

means: 

* * * * * 

(B) Stationary floating processors 

(SFP). A geographic position within 

State of Alaska waters of the BS subarea 

and that is within a 5 nm radius of the 

latitude and longitude reported in the 

check–in and check–out reports at 

§ 679.5(h)(5)(ix)(B). An AFA SFP cannot 

change its single geographic location 

more than four times within State of 

Alaska waters in the BS subarea to 

process pollock harvested in a BS 

subarea directed pollock fishery during 

a fishing year and cannot use more than 

one single geographic location during a 

reporting week. 

* * * * * 

3. In § 679.5, add paragraph (h)(4)(x) 

to read as follows: 

§ 679.5 Recordkeeping and reporting 

(R&R). 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

(4) * * * 

For ... If you are a ... Submit a BEGIN message Submit a CEASE message 

* * * * * * * 

(x) Change of location AFA SFP Before receiving groundfish. Upon completion of receipt of 

groundfish from a position and before 

movement from that position. 

17142 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 14, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

* * * * * 

4. In § 679.7, revise paragraphs 

(a)(7)(vi) and (k)(3)(iv)(B) and add 

paragraph (k)(3)(vii) to read as follows: 

§ 679.7 Prohibitions. 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

(7) * * * 

(vi) Except as provided in paragraph 

(k)(3)(iv) of this section, use a stationary 

floating processor with a GOA inshore 

processing endorsement to process 

pollock or GOA Pacific cod harvested in 

a directed fishery for those species in 

more than one single geographic 

location during a fishing year. 

* * * * * 

(k) * * * 

(3) * * * 

(iv) * * * 

(B) Stationary floating processor 

(SFP). A geographic position within 

State of Alaska waters of the BS subarea 

and that is within a 5 nm radius of the 

latitude and longitude reported in the 

check–in and check–out reports at 

§ 679.5(h)(5)(ix)(B). An AFA SFP cannot 

change its single geographic location 

more than four times within State of 

Alaska waters in the BS subarea to 

process pollock harvested in a BS 

subarea directed pollock fishery during 

a fishing year and cannot use more than 

one single geographic location during a 

reporting week. 

* * * * * 

(vii) Restrictions for GOA Pacific cod 

and GOA pollock. Use an AFA SFP to 

process GOA pollock or GOA Pacific 

cod in any location other than the 

location at which either GOA pollock or 

GOA Pacific cod were first processed in 

the year 2002. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. E9–8528 Filed 4–13–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S