Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery; Framework Adjustment 22, 23940-23962 [2011-10334]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 83 (Friday, April 29, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 23940-23962]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-10334]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 648

[Docket No. 110118038-1236-01]
RIN 0648-BA72


Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Sea Scallop 
Fishery; Framework Adjustment 22

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

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes regulations to implement Framework Adjustment 22 
(Framework 22) to the Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery Management Plan 
(FMP), which was developed and adopted by the New England Fishery 
Management Council (Council) and submitted to NMFS for approval. The 
specifications proposed in Framework 22 are based on, and being 
proposed in conjunction with, the management measures proposed in 
Amendment 15 to the FMP (Amendment 15) that establish the process for 
setting annual catch limits (ACLs) and accountability measures (AMs) to 
bring the FMP into compliance with the requirements of the re-
authorized Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 
(Magnuson-Stevens Act). The purpose of Framework 22 is to specify the 
following scallop management measures for the 2011 through 2012 fishing 
years (FYs): The overfishing limit (OFL), acceptable biological catches 
(ABC), ACLs, and annual catch targets (ACTs) for both the limited 
access (LA) and limited access general category (LAGC) fleets; open 
area days-at-sea (DAS) and Sea Scallop Access Area (access area) trip 
allocations; DAS adjustments if an access area yellowtail flounder 
(YTF) total allowable catch (TAC) is caught; LAGC-specific allocations, 
including access area trip allocations for vessels with individual 
fishing quotas (IFQs), the Northern Gulf of Maine (NGOM) TAC, and the 
incidental target TAC; management measures to minimize impacts of 
incidental take of sea turtles as required by the March 14, 2008, 
Atlantic Sea Scallop Biological Opinion (Biological Opinion); and the 
elimination of the default Georges Bank (GB) access area rotation 
schedule.
    Framework 22 also proposes, consistent with proposed measures in 
Amendment 15, precautionary default management measures for FY 2013 to 
be applied if a new biennial framework adjustment is not implemented by 
the start of FY 2013.

DATES: Comments must be received by 5 p.m., local time, on May 31, 
2011.

ADDRESSES: An environmental assessment (EA) was prepared for Framework 
22 that describes the proposed action and other considered alternatives 
and provides a thorough analysis of the impacts of the proposed 
measures and alternatives. Copies of Framework 22, the EA, and the 
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), are available upon 
request from Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, New England Fishery 
Management Council, 50 Water Street, Newburyport, MA 01950.

[[Page 23941]]

    You may submit comments, identified by 0648-BA72, by any one of the 
following methods:
     Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public 
comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal https://www.regulations.gov.
     Fax: (978) 281-9135, Attn: Emily Gilbert.
     Mail: Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional Administrator, NMFS, 
Northeast Regional Office, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 
01930. Mark the outside of the envelope, ``Comments on Scallop 
Framework 22 Proposed Rule.''
    Instructions: All comments received are a part of the public record 
and will generally be posted to https://www.regulations.gov without 
change. All Personal Identifying Information (for example, name, 
address, etc.) 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). You may submit attachments to 
electronic comments in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF 
file formats only.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Emily Gilbert, Fishery Policy Analyst, 
978-281-9244; fax 978-281-9135.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    The Council adopted Framework 22 on November 17, 2010, and 
submitted it to NMFS on March 23, 2011, for review and approval. 
Framework 22 was developed and adopted by the Council, partially in 
conjunction with and based on Amendment 15 proposed measures, in order 
to comply with requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act enacted in 2007 
to meet the FMP's objectives to prevent overfishing and improve yield-
per-recruit from the fishery. Consequently, the authority to implement 
Framework 22, in part, is based on approval by NMFS of Amendment 15. 
Framework 22 specifies measures for FYs 2011 through 2012, but includes 
FY 2013 measures that will go into place as a default should the 
biennial framework required by proposed Amendment 15 to specify FY 2013 
and FY 2014 measures be delayed beyond the start of FY 2013. Framework 
22, if approved, will be implemented after the start of FY 2011. Some 
of the measures proposed by this action are not explicitly proposed in 
Framework 22, but are being proposed by NMFS under the authority of 
Section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, which provides that the 
Secretary may promulgate regulations necessary to ensure that 
amendments to an FMP are carried out in accordance with the FMP and the 
MSA. These measures, which are identified and described below, are 
necessary to address unintended consequences of the projected late 
implementation of this action, as well as to clarify implied measures 
which may not have been explicitly included in Framework 22. The 
Council has reviewed the Framework 22 proposed rule regulations as 
drafted by NMFS and deemed them to be necessary and appropriate as 
specified in section 303(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

Default Management Measures for FY 2013

    The specifications proposed in this action also include default 
measures for FY 2013, because Amendment 15 proposes that framework 
adjustments setting biennial scallop specifications should also include 
an additional year of allocations to be used as default measures. Final 
Council action on scallop frameworks has routinely occurred at the 
November Council meeting, which has resulted in management measures 
being approved and implemented by NMFS after the March 1 start of the 
first FY for which the measures apply. Under the current regulations, 
the prior year's management measures roll over to the subsequent FY 
until they are superseded by a subsequent framework adjustment. 
Amendment 15 proposes instead to develop specific third-year default 
measures to account for any possible delays in the implementation of 
the subsequent biennial framework adjustment. Therefore, this action 
proposes default FY 2013 measures that would be implemented on March 1, 
2013, if the next biennial adjustment is delayed beyond the start of FY 
2013. The proposed FY 2013 measures will be replaced by a subsequent 
framework adjustment that would set FYs 2013 through 2015 measures 
based on updated scallop biomass projections. The proposed FY 2013 DAS 
allocations would be set at a precautionary level (i.e., 75 percent of 
what current biomass levels project would be the DAS allocation for the 
entire FY). In addition, this action proposes the following default 
management measures for FY 2013: Access area trip allocations; DAS 
adjustments if an access area YTF TAC is caught; LAGC access area trip 
allocations; and management measures to minimize impacts of incidental 
take of sea turtles that are based on the proposed FY 2013 allocations. 
These management measures are described in greater detail throughout 
the preamble of this action.

Specification of Scallop OFL, ABC, ACL, and ACTs for FYs 2011 and 2012 
and defaults specifications for FY 2013

    These specifications are being proposed in accordance with measures 
and criteria set out in proposed Amendment 15. The OFL is set based on 
a fishing mortality rate (F) of 0.38, equivalent to the F threshold 
updated through the most recent scallop stock assessment. The ABC and 
equivalent total ACL for each FY are based on an F of 0.32, the F 
associated with a 25-percent probability of exceeding the OFL. The 
Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) recommended ABCs 
for the FY 2011 and 2012 scallop fisheries of 60.1 M lb (27,269 mt) and 
63.8 M lb (28,961 mt), respectively, after accounting for discards and 
incidental mortality. The Scallop Plan Development Team (PDT) estimated 
the FY 2013 ABC of 28,700 mt using the same approach that was reviewed 
and approved by the SSC to set the ABC for FYs 2011 and 2012. The 
decision to include third-year default measures occurred after the SSC 
made ABC recommendations for this action. The SSC will recommend an ABC 
in conjunction with the next biennial framework adjustment for FY 2013 
and FY 2014, as well as a default ABC for FY 2015.
    Table 1 outlines the various scallop fishery catch limits that are 
derived from these ABC values. After deducting the incidental target 
TAC and the research and observer set-asides, the remaining ACL 
available to the fishery is proportioned out according to Amendment 11 
fleet allocations, with 94.5 percent allocated to the LA scallop fleet, 
5 percent allocated to the LAGC IFQ fleet, and the remaining 0.5 
percent allocated to LA scallop vessels that also have LAGC IFQ 
permits. These separate ACLs and their corresponding ACTs are referred 
to as sub-ACLs and sub-ACTs, respectively, throughout this action. 
Amendment 15 proposes that no buffers to account for management 
uncertainty are necessary in setting the LAGC sub-ACLs, meaning that 
the LAGC sub-ACL would equal the LAGC sub-ACT. As a result, the LAGC 
sub-ACL values in Table 1, based on an F of 0.32, represent the amount 
of catch from which IFQ percent shares will be applied to calculate 
each vessel's IFQ for a given FY. For the LA fleet, Amendment 15 
proposes a management uncertainty buffer based on the F associated with 
a 75-percent probability of remaining

[[Page 23942]]

below the F associated with ABC/ACL, which results in an F of 0.28.

        Table 1--Scallop Catch Limits for FYs 2011 Through 2013 for Both the LA and LAGC IFQ Fleets (mt)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       2011            2012            2013
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OFL.............................................................          32,387          34,382          34,081
ABC/ACL.........................................................          27,269          28,961          28,700
Incidental TAC..................................................              23              23              23
Research Set-Aside (RSA)........................................             567             567             567
Observer Set-aside (1 percent of ABC/ACL).......................             273             290             287
LA sub-ACL(94.5 percent of total ACL, after deducting set-asides          24,954          26,537          26,293
 and incidental catch)..........................................
LA sub-ACT (adjusted for management uncertainty)................          21,431          23,546          19,688
LAGC IFQ sub-ACL (5.0 percent of total ACL, after deducting set-           1,320           1,404           1,391
 asides and incidental catch)...................................
LAGC IFQ sub-ACL for vessels with LA scallop permits (0.5                    132             140             139
 percent of total ACL, after deducting set-asides and incidental
 catch).........................................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These allocations do not account for any adjustments that would be 
made year-to-year if the AMs proposed in Amendment 15 are triggered due 
to annual landings exceeding the ACL.

Open Area DAS Allocations

    This action would implement vessel-specific DAS allocations for 
each of the three limited access scallop DAS permit categories (i.e., 
full-time, part-time, and occasional) for FYs 2011 through 2013 (Table 
2). While the Council specified full-time DAS allocations and provided 
the formula for calculating DAS allocations for part-time and 
occasional vessels based on Amendment 4 to the Scallop FMP (Amendment 
4), Framework 22 did not explicitly state the specific DAS allocations 
for part-time and occasional vessels. Amendment 4 sets the DAS 
allocations for part-time and occasional vessel at 40 percent and 8.33 
percent, respectively, of the DAS allocations assigned to full-time 
vessels. NMFS has applied these percentages to the full-time vessel DAS 
allocations for FYs 2011 through FY 2013 to clearly specify the part-
time and occasional DAS for those FYs in Table 2. FY 2013 DAS 
allocations are precautionary, and are set at 75 percent of what 
current biomass projections indicate could be allocated to each LA 
scallop vessel for the entire FY so as to avoid over-allocating DAS to 
the fleet in the event that the framework that would set those 
allocations, if delayed past the start of FY 2013, estimates that DAS 
should be less than currently projected.

                      Table 2--Scallop Open Area DAS Allocations for FYs 2011 Through 2013
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Scallop open area DAS allocations
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Permit category                              FY 2011         FY 2012         FY 2013
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Full-Time.......................................................              32              34              26
Part-Time.......................................................              13              14              11
Occasional......................................................               3               3               3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because Framework 22 would not go into effect until after the March 
1 start of FY 2011, the current DAS allocations, which are higher than 
those proposed in Framework 22, will roll over until Framework 22 is 
implemented. It is possible that scallop vessels could exceed their 
Framework 22 DAS allocations during the interim period between March 1, 
2011, and the implementation of the proposed DAS allocations in 
Framework 22. Therefore, Framework 22 specifies that the number of LA 
open area DAS used in FY 2011 by a vessel (excluding carryover DAS) 
that exceed the final FY 2011 open area DAS allocation for that vessel 
would be deducted from the vessel's FY 2012 open area DAS allocation.

Open Area DAS Adjustment if Access Area YTF TAC Is Attained

    Under the Northeast Multispecies FMP, 10 percent of the GB YTF TAC 
is allocated to scallop vessels fishing in the Closed Area 1 (CAI) and 
Closed Area II (CAII) Access Areas, combined; and 10 percent of the 
Southern New England/Mid-Atlantic (SNE/MA) YTF TAC is allocated to 
scallop vessels fishing in the Nantucket Lightship (NLS) Access Area. 
Under the Northeast Multispecies regulations, if the GB or SNE/MA YTF 
TAC is caught, CAI and CAII, and/or NLS would close to further scallop 
fishing for the remainder of the FY. If a vessel has unutilized trip(s) 
after an access area is closed due to reaching the YTF TAC, it would be 
allocated additional open area DAS at a reduced rate. Unused access 
area trip(s) would be converted to open area DAS so that scallop 
fishing mortality that would have resulted from the access area trip(s) 
would be equivalent to the scallop fishing mortality resulting from the 
open area DAS allocation. The conversion used to allocate additional 
DAS from a YTF access area closure is based on Framework 22's proposed 
FYs 2011-2013 LA scallop possession limits for access area trips of 
18,000 lb (8,165 kg) for full-time vessels, 14,400 lb (6,532 kg) for 
part-time vessels, and 6,000 lb (2,723 kg) for occasional vessels, and 
are as follows: For a given FY, the pounds remaining from an access 
area trip(s) (i.e., from a fully unused trip(s) and/or unused 
compensation trip(s)) would first be multiplied by the average meat 
count (i.e., number of shucked scallop abductor muscles per lb) from 
that area and then subsequently divided by both the open area average 
meat count and by the open area landings per unit effort (LPUE), 
resulting in a DAS allocation comparable to the unused access area 
pounds. For example, in FY 2011, based on a catch limit of 18,000 lb, 
the average meat count for scallops in CAI is estimated to be 10.6 
meats/lb, assuming that 190,800 scallops are removed per full-time trip 
(18,000 lb (8,165 kg) x 10.6

[[Page 23943]]

meats/lb = 190,800 meats (equivalent to 1 scallop per meat)). The open 
area meat count and LPUE for open areas in FY 2011 are estimated to be 
18.4 meats/lb and 2,441 lb/DAS, respectively. The estimated number of 
open area DAS a full-time vessel would use to catch the same number of 
scallops as it would in CAI with an 18,000-lb possession limit would be 
4.3 DAS (190,800 scallops/(18.4 meats/lb x 2,441 lb/DAS = 4.3 DAS). 
Therefore, if a full-time vessel had an unused CAI trip at the time of 
a CAI YTF TAC closure, the vessel would be allocated 4.3 DAS in open 
areas. Table 3 outlines the DAS/trip conversion for unused full-time, 
part-time, and occasional vessels access area trips. This trip/DAS 
conversion would apply to all full-time vessels, but only to occasional 
or part-time vessels that have no other available access areas in which 
to take their access area trip(s). Although Framework 22 did not 
explicitly outline the DAS conversion factors for part-time and 
occasional vessels, NMFS has listed those values in Table 3 using the 
possession limits, LPUE estimates, and meat weight estimates provided 
in the Framework 22 document. Additionally, Framework 22 did not 
explicitly provide how the DAS/trip conversion would be applied to 
compensation trips that could no longer be used in the access area to 
which they apply. NMFS clarifies in this proposed rule that if a vessel 
has an unused compensation trip in an access area that closes due to 
YTF, the same calculation outlined above would apply, resulting in a 
proportional DAS increase to that of a fully unused trip allocation. 
For example, in FY 2011, if a full-time vessel had an unused 9,000-lb 
(4,082-kg) CAI compensation trip (i.e., half of the full-time vessel's 
18,000-lb (8,165-kg) possession limit) at the time of a CAI YTF TAC 
closure, the vessel would be allocated 2.15 DAS (i.e., half of the 4.3 
DAS that would be allocated for a full CAI trip).

 Table 3--Scallop Access Area Trip/DAS Conversions if CAI, CAII, and/or NLS Close Due to Full Harvest of GB and/
                                                or SNE/MA YTF TAC
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Access area trip conversion to open area DAS
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Permit category                        FY              CAI            CAII             NLS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Full-Time.......................................            2011             4.3             5.7
                                                            2012             4.4             5.4             4.3
                                                            2013  ..............             5.4             4.9
Part-Time.......................................            2011             3.4             4.5
                                                            2012             3.6             4.3             3.4
                                                            2013  ..............             4.3             3.9
Occasional......................................            2011             1.4             1.9
                                                            2012             1.5             1.8             1.4
                                                            2013  ..............             1.8             1.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LA Trip Allocations, the Random Allocation Process, and Possession 
Limits for Scallop Access Areas

    This action proposes a new access area allocation scheme for full-
time vessels fishing in scallop access areas. In terms of allocations 
to the fleet, full-time LA scallop vessels would receive four access 
area trips in FYs 2011 through 2013. In order to avoid allocating trips 
into access areas with scallop biomass levels not large enough to 
support a full trip by all 313 LA full-time vessels, Framework 22 
proposes to allocate ``split-fleet'' trips into certain access areas. 
Framework 22 would randomly allocate half of the full-time vessels a 
full trip into a specific area(s), and half of the full-time vessels a 
full trip into a different area(s). Ultimately, all vessels would 
receive the same number of total access area trips, although the 
specific areas to which they have access may differ (Table 4). The 
Framework 22 document refers to this process as a ``lottery,'' but NMFS 
refers to this allocation scheme as the ``random allocation process.''
    The Council specified that the full-time vessels' access area trip 
allocations should be set as randomly as possible. Therefore, the 
Scallop PDT developed an allocation system where permit numbers are 
selected based on a simple random number generator in Microsoft Excel 
and the vessels associated with a permit number would be allocated the 
access area(s) where it can fish. For FYs 2011 and 2013, this process 
is relatively simple because there are only two access areas in which 
to split trip allocations in each FY: Half of the full-time vessels 
would be randomly allocated a trip into one area, resulting in the rest 
of the vessels being allocated a trip into the other area. The random 
allocation process is more complicated if there are more than two 
applicable access areas. Section 2.4.2 of the Framework 22 document 
includes a full description of the random allocation process in cases 
involving more than two access area trips. In FY 2012, because full-
time vessels would receive two access area trip allocations randomly 
from a selection of four access areas, the random allocation process 
would be modified by computing a number of random iterations to allow 
for vessels to receive two trips from two distinct access areas (rather 
than only a single iteration, as in FYs 2011 and 2013), while 
distributing fishing effort equally across the four access areas. In 
order to facilitate trading trips between vessels, the proposed 
allocations for full-time vessels for FY 2011 have already been 
identified, and can be found in Section 2.4.2 of the Framework 22 
document (See ADDRESSES), as well as NMFS's Web site. These preliminary 
allocations, subject to NMFS approval of Framework 22 and permit 
renewal requirements, would be updated with any changes in vessel 
ownership and/or vessel replacements. The split-fleet trip assignments 
would also be made publically available through NMFS's Web site and in 
permit holder letters prior to the start of FYs 2012 and 2013. The 
decision to use a random allocation process to allocate access area 
trips to full-time vessels will be re-evaluated in a future framework 
adjustment.
    In FY 2011, all full-time scallop vessels would be allocated one 
trip in the Delmarva Access Area (Delmarva), one trip into the Hudson 
Canyon Access Area (HC), and one trip into CAI (Table 4). In addition, 
157 full-time vessels would be allocated one trip into CAII, and the 
other 156 full-time vessels would be allocated an additional trip into 
CAI, for a total of four access area trips per full-time vessel. A 
part-time scallop vessel would be allocated two trips, which could be 
taken in one of the following combinations: Two trips in CAI; one trip 
in the CAI and one trip in

[[Page 23944]]

CAII; one trip in CAI and one trip in HC; one trip in CAI and one trip 
in Delmarva; one trip in CAII and one trip in HC; one trip in CAII and 
one trip in Delmarva; or one trip in HC and one trip in Delmarva. An 
occasional vessel would be allocated one trip, which could be taken in 
any one open access area.
    Because the proposed measures would be implemented after March 1, 
2011, and the current regulations that would roll over into FY 2011 are 
inconsistent with the proposed specifications, it is possible that 
during the interim between the start of FY 2011 and the implementation 
of the proposed measures a scallop vessel would take a trip in an area 
not open under the proposed measures. For example, under the current 
roll-over provisions, at the start of FY 2011, the Elephant Trunk 
Access Area (ETAA), is an open access area, and full-time vessels have 
received the same allocation as they received in FY 2010 (i.e., two 
ETAA trips, one Delmarva trip, and one NLS trip). However, Framework 22 
proposes to close NLS in FY 2011 and change the ETAA into an open area 
to be fished under DAS allocations. Framework 22 has accounted for the 
ETAA changing from an access area to an open area by including the 
calculated biomass in this and other areas in the proposed overall open 
area DAS allocations for FY 2011.
    If during FY 2011 a vessel fishes on an ETAA trip allocated during 
the interim period between the start of FY 2011 and the implementation 
of Framework 22, under this rule's framework any pounds landed from a 
declared ETAA trip would be converted to the equivalent DAS and 
deducted from that vessel's open area DAS allocations in FY 2012. The 
conversion would be calculated as follows: The pounds a vessel lands 
from the ETAA would first be multiplied by the estimated ETAA average 
meat count (18.4 meats/lb) and then divided by the product of the 
estimated open area average meat count (also 18.4 meats/lb) multiplied 
by the estimated open area LPUE for FY 2011 (2,441 lb/DAS). For 
example, if a full-time vessel lands the full 18,000-lb (8,165-kg) 
possession limit on an ETAA trip in FY 2011, that vessel would incur a 
DAS deduction of 7.4 DAS in FY 2012 ((18,000 lb x 18.4 meats/lb)/(18.4 
meats/lb x 2,441 lb/DAS)), to account for those landings, resulting in 
a total FY 2012 DAS allocation of 26.8 DAS (i.e., 34 DAS minus 7.4 
DAS). Part-time and occasional vessels would receive deductions of 5.9 
DAS and 2.5 DAS, respectively, for landing their full trip possession 
limits from the ETAA in FY 2011. If a vessel only lands a portion of 
its full possession limit, the applicable DAS reduction would be 
proportional to those landings. For example, if a full-time vessel 
lands 9,000 lb (4,082 kg) during a declared ETAA trip in FY 2011, that 
vessel's FY 2012 DAS allocation would be reduced by 3.7 DAS (i.e., half 
of the DAS that would be deducted for a full trip).
    Framework 22 includes a provision that this DAS deduction would not 
apply to vessels that are fishing compensation trips in the ETAA from 
trips broken during the last 60 days of FY 2010. The regulations would 
allow for these compensation trips to be taken within the first 60 days 
of the subsequent FY if the access area from where the trip was broken 
remains open. Because the ETAA would still be considered an access area 
under the roll-over regulations at the start of FY 2011, any FY 2010 
compensation trips taken prior to April 29, 2011would not be counted 
against FY 2011 DAS.
    Framework 22 also proposes that NLS will close in FY 2011 but, 
under the roll-over FY 2010 measures in effect at the start of FY 2011, 
trips are currently allocated into NLS. In the event that Framework 22 
is not approved prior to the opening of NLS (June 15, 2011), Framework 
22 also proposes a pay-back measure to account for scallops that could 
be landed from vessels that declare NLS trips: If a vessel declares a 
trip into and lands scallops from the NLS in FY 2011, any pounds landed 
from this area would be deducted from that vessel's FY 2012 NLS 
allocation. NMFS would send a notification letter to the vessel 
regarding the incurred overage following the end of FY 2011. If the 
vessel is not allocated an NLS trip in FY 2012 under the ``split 
fleet'' random allocation process, the vessel owner would be given the 
opportunity to select the area from which the trip overage would be 
deducted, with NMFS determining the area if the vessel owner fails to 
respond.
    Framework 22 does not account for the effects of delays in 
implementation of Framework 22 on trip exchanges that occurred during 
the interim period between the start of FY 2011 and the implementation 
of Framework 22. Currently, Delmarva is the only access area which 
would remain open under measures in place at the start of FY 2011 and 
proposed in the Framework 22 measures. Because the regulations allow 
for allocated access area trip exchanges between vessels of the same 
permit category, and due to the mid-year implementation of Framework 
22, there would likely be complications for vessels that exchanged a 
Delmarva trip for a trip in either the ETAA or NLS prior to the 
implementation of Framework 22. For example, if a vessel gave up its 
Delmarva trip through an exchange with another vessel, and gained an 
additional NLS as a result, both its NLS trips would disappear after 
Framework 22 is implemented, assuming the vessel did not declare into 
and land scallops from the NLS. With the loss of its two NLS trips, two 
ETAA trips, and one traded Delmarva trip, the vessel would end up with 
a total FY 2011 access area allocation of three trips (e.g., one in HC, 
and either two in CAI or one in CAI and one in CAII). Conversely, the 
vessel that gained the additional Delmarva trip through the exchange 
would ultimately have a total FY 2011 access area trip allocation of 
five trips (e.g., two in Delmarva, one in HC, and either two in CAI or 
one in CAI and one in CAII). The identical outcome would occur if a 
vessel traded its Delmarva trip for another vessel's ETAA trip. 
Although the total number of trips between two vessels trading a 
Delmarva trip for either an ETAA or NLS trip would still equal eight 
trips (i.e., no additional landings result from the trip exchange that 
were not already accounted for in Framework 22's biological 
projections), the distribution of trips between these vessels would not 
be the identical for FY 2011 (i.e., one vessel would have a total of 
three trips and the other would have a total of five, rather than each 
vessel having a total of four). Similarly, if a part-time vessel trades 
its Delmarva trip for a trip into either the NLS or ETAA, that vessel 
would be locked into taking the trip in either of those areas. This 
trip, regardless of whether it's an NLS trip or an ETAA trip, would 
also disappear after the implementation of Framework 22, resulting in 
that part-time vessel having a total of only one access area trip to 
fish in any open access area.
    To avoid these and other potential inequitable consequences of trip 
exchanges due to the late implementation of Framework 22 to the extent 
practicable, NMFS proposes the following measure, under section 305(d) 
authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act: If a vessel acquires an 
additional ETAA trip through a trip exchange, it will be credited for 
that trip with additional DAS, equivalent to the trip's possession 
limit, as soon as possible if and when Framework 22 is implemented. 
Under this proposal, a full-time vessel that had exchanged for an ETAA 
trip would receive a DAS credit of 7.4 DAS if that vessel did not 
declare into and fish that ETAA trip. That vessel would then have a 
total FY 2011 DAS allocation of 39.4

[[Page 23945]]

DAS (32 DAS plus 7.4 DAS). Similarly, part-time vessels would receive a 
credit of 5.9 DAS, if they initially receive an additional ETAA trip 
through a trip exchange that is later removed upon implementation of 
Framework 22. In order to apply this trip exchange DAS conversion 
consistently, NMFS proposes that if the vessel fishes any part of an 
ETAA trip it gained through a trip exchange, those landings would be 
converted to DAS, using the same calculation described previously, and 
deducted from any DAS credit applied to FY 2011, rather than deducted 
in FY 2012. Although the Council has generally applied pay-back 
measures due to late framework implementation in the subsequent FY, 
this DAS credit, if applied to the subsequent FY, could have unintended 
ACL implications in FY 2012 by increasing the risk that the LA fleet 
could exceed the ACL for that FY. Because Framework 22 proposes that 
NLS is closed in FY 2011, there is not a viable way to account for the 
loss of a traded NLS trip. By proposing a DAS credit applicable to ETAA 
trip exchanges, NMFS is providing a level of flexibility in trip 
exchanges during the interim period between the start of FY 2011 and 
implementation of Framework 22.
    No access area trips are currently allocated for CAI and CAII, and 
HC is currently closed, so no trips into those areas could be taken 
until Framework 22 is effective.
    Under Framework 22, during FY 2012 all full-time scallop vessels 
would be allocated a total of four access area trips (Table 4). Each 
full-time vessel would receive one trip into CAII, and one trip into 
HC. The remaining two access area trips would be allocated in the 
following combinations: One trip in CAI and one trip in NLS; one trip 
in CAI and one additional trip in HC; one trip in CAI and one trip in 
Delmarva; one trip in NLS and an additional trip in HC; one trip in NLS 
and one trip in Delmarva; or an additional trip in HC and one in 
Delmarva. Information on trip assignments would be available prior to 
the start of FY 2012. A part-time scallop vessel would be allocated two 
trips in FY 2012, which could be taken in one of the following 
combinations: Two trips in HC; one trip in the CAI and one trip in NLS; 
one trip in CAI and one trip in HC; one trip in CAI and one trip in 
Delmarva; one trip in NLS and one trip in HC; one trip in NLS and one 
trip in Delmarva; or one trip in HC and one trip in Delmarva. An 
occasional vessel would be allocated one trip, which could be taken in 
any one open access area.
    Also under Framework 22, at the start of FY 2013, all full-time 
scallop vessels would be allocated one trip in CAII, one trip in NLS, 
and one trip in HC (Table 4). In addition, half the fleet would be 
allocated a trip in Delmarva and the other half of the fleet would be 
allocated another trip in HC, for a total of four access area trips for 
each full-time vessel. These allocations would be assigned and made 
publically available prior to the start of FY 2013. A part-time scallop 
vessel would be allocated two trips, which could be taken in one of the 
following combinations: Two trips in HC; one trip in CAII and one trip 
in NLS; one trip in CAII and one trip in HC; one trip in CAII and one 
trip in Delmarva; one trip in NLS and one trip in HC; one trip in NLS 
and one trip in Delmarva; or one trip in HC and one trip in Delmarva. 
An occasional vessel would be allocated one trip, which could be taken 
in any one open access area.

      Table 4--Scallop Access Area Trip Allocations for Full-Time LA Scallop Vessels During FY 2011-2013 *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    CAI             CAII             NLAA              HC            Delmarva
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2011........................             1.5              0.5  ...............              1                1
2012........................             0.5              1                0.5              1.5              0.5
2013........................  ..............              1                1                1.5              0.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Split-fleet trips are identified by ``0.5'' and ``1.5'': The ``0.5'' indicates that half the fleet would be
  allocated one full trip into a specific access area and the ``1.5'' indicates that all full-time vessels would
  be allocated one full trip into a specific access area and half of the vessels would be allocated an
  additional full trip into that area.

LAGC Measures

    1. Sub-ACL for LAGC vessels with IFQ permits. For LAGC vessels with 
IFQ permits, this action proposes a 2,910,800-lb (1,320-mt) ACL for FY 
2011, a 3,095,450-lb (1,404-mt) ACL for FY 2012, and an initial ACL of 
3,067,000 lb (1,391 mt) for FY 2013 (Table 1). IFQ allocations would be 
calculated by applying each vessel's IFQ contribution percentage to 
these ACLs. These allocations assume that no LAGC IFQ AMs are 
triggered. If a vessel exceeds its IFQ in a given FY, its IFQ for the 
subsequent FY would be deducted by the amount of the overage.
    2. Sub-ACL for LA Scallop Vessels with IFQ Permits. For LA scallop 
vessels with IFQ permits, this action proposes a 291,080-lb (132-mt) 
ACL for FY 2011, a 309,550-lb (140-mt) ACL for FY 2012, and an initial 
ACL of 306,700 lb (139 mt) for FY 2013 (Table 1). IFQ allocations would 
be calculated by applying each vessel's IFQ contribution percentage to 
these ACLs. These allocations assume that no LAGC IFQ AMs are 
triggered. If a vessel exceeds its IFQ in a given FY, its IFQ for the 
subsequent FY would be reduced by the amount of the overage.
    3. LAGC IFQ Trip Allocations and Possession Limits for Scallop 
Access Areas. The LAGC IFQ fishery would be allocated 5.5 percent of 
the overall TAC in each open access area for FYs 2011 through 2013. 
LAGC IFQ vessels would not be allocated trips into CAII, because these 
vessels are not expected to fish in that area due to its distance from 
shore. These percentages would result in a specific number of fleet-
wide trips for LAGC vessels fishing in access areas (Table 5). The 
areas would close to LAGC vessels when the Regional Administrator 
determines that the allocated number of trips have been taken in the 
applicable area.

   Table 5--LAGC Fleet-Wide Access Area Trip Allocations for FYs 2011
                              Through 2013
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Access area                  FY 2011   FY 2012   FY 2013
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAI.......................................       890       296  ........
CAII......................................         0         0         0
NLS.......................................  ........       296       595
HC........................................       593       887       893
Delmarva..................................       593       296       298
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because this action would be implemented mid-year, and the current 
regulations, which have rolled over into FY 2011, are inconsistent with 
the proposed specifications, it is possible that LAGC scallop vessels 
could exceed the final FY 2011 fleet-wide trip allocation in Delmarva 
under Framework 22. Additionally, LAGC vessels could declare and fish 
trips in NLS, proposed to be closed in FY 2011 under Framework 22, 
should Framework 22 be approved and

[[Page 23946]]

implemented after that area is currently scheduled to open on June 15, 
2011. Although the Council did not discuss this LAGC trip-overage 
scenario for Delmarva, NLS, and the ETAA in their Framework 22 
document, to make measures consistent with other Framework 22 measures 
applicable to the LA scallop fleet and with previous framework 
adjustments, NMFS proposes, under its section 305(d) authority, the 
following measures: The current regulations allocate 714 trips each 
into Delmarva and NLS. If LAGC vessels exceed the final number of 
allocated trips from Delmarva in FY 2011, the number of excess trips 
would be deducted from the LAGC IFQ fleet Delmarva trip allocation in 
FY 2012. Because NLS would close in FY 2011 under Framework 22, any 
LAGC trips declared into NLS will be in excess of that area's FY 2011 
fleet-wide trip allocation. As a result, if Framework 22 is 
implemented, LAGC vessels that declare into and land scallops from NLS 
would have the number of trips declared deducted from the LAGC IFQ 
fleet-wide NLS trip allocation in FY 2012. Although there will be 
fleet-wide LAGC trips into the ETAA at the start of FY 2011, this area 
would change to an open area under the proposed action. Because any 
landings from trips taken in the ETAA will be deducted from each 
vessel's IFQ allocations, and because there are no specific fleet-wide 
trips allocated to LAGC vessels fishing in open areas, there would be 
no pay-back measure associated with LAGC vessels that fish in the ETAA 
prior to the implementation of the proposed action.
    4. NGOM TAC. This action proposes a 70,000-lb (31,751-kg) annual 
NGOM TAC for FYs 2011 through 2013. These allocations for FY 2012 and 
FY 2013 assume that in a given FY there are no overages, which would 
trigger a pound-for-pound deduction in the subsequent FY to account for 
the overage based on measures proposed in Amendment 15.
    5. Scallop Incidental Catch Target TAC. This action proposes a 
50,000-lb (22,680-kg) scallop incidental catch target TAC for FYs 2011 
through 2013 to account for mortality from this component of the 
fishery, and to ensure that F-targets are not exceeded.

Research Set-Aside (RSA) Allocations

    As proposed in Amendment 15, this action would deduct 1.25 M lb 
(567 mt) of scallops annually for FYs 2011 through 2013 from the ABC 
and set it aside as the Scallop RSA to fund scallop research and to 
compensate participating vessels through the sale of scallops harvested 
under RSA projects. Upon final approval of Amendment 15 measures, this 
set-aside would be available for harvest in open areas. Framework 22 
would set the access area rotation schedule, and vessels would be able 
to harvest RSA from access areas upon implementation of Framework 22. 
Unlike previous scallop framework adjustments, Framework 22 does not 
propose specific RSA quota allocations within specific access areas. 
Projects would be assigned specific harvest allocations within access 
areas through the RSA application review and approval process, and a 
vessel with available RSA could harvest allotted RSA from an access 
area until the RSA allocated to that vessel and/or project is fully 
harvested.

Observer Set-Aside Allocations

    This action would remove 1 percent from the ABC and set it aside 
for the industry-funded observer program to help defray the cost of 
carrying an observer. This observer set-aside would be further divided 
proportionally into access areas and open areas. Scallop vessels on an 
observed DAS trip are charged a reduced DAS rate, and scallop vessels 
on an observed access area trip are authorized an increased possession 
limit. The Regional Administrator has specified the following 
compensation rate for the start of FY 2011: Vessels carrying an 
observer will receive 180 lb (82 kg) of scallops per day, or part of a 
day, when fishing in an access area, and LA DAS vessels will be 
compensated 0.08 DAS per DAS fished during observed open area trips 
(i.e., vessels will be charged 0.92 DAS per DAS fished with an observer 
onboard). The Regional Administrator shall periodically review, but at 
least once prior to each fishing year, all available fishery 
information to determine if these rates should be adjusted. The FY 2011 
through 2013 observer set-aside allocations for open and access areas 
are outlined in Table 6.

 Table 6--Open Area, Access Area, and Total Observer Set-Aside TACs for
                          FYs 2011 Through 2013
                    [mt, unless otherwise specified]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Area                      FY 2011   FY 2012   FY 2013
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open areas................................       139       161       136
Open (in DAS).............................       137       133       112
CAI.......................................        51        16       N/A
CAII......................................        16        31        36
NLS.......................................       N/A        16        38
HC........................................        34        49        57
Delmarva..................................        34        16        19
                                           -----------------------------
    Total.................................       273       290       287
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Measures to Minimize the Impacts of Incidental Take of Sea Turtles

    Under the Endangered Species Act, each Federal agency is required 
to ensure its actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued 
existence of any listed species or critical habitat. If a Federal 
action is likely to adversely affect a listed species, formal 
consultation is necessary. To date, five formal Section 7 
consultations, with resulting Biological Opinions, have been completed 
on the Atlantic sea scallop fishery. All five have had the same 
conclusion: The continued authorization of the scallop fishery may 
adversely affect, but is not likely to jeopardize, the continued 
existence of four sea turtles species (Kemp's ridley, loggerhead, 
green, and leatherback). In the accompanying Incidental Take Statements 
of the Biological Opinions, NMFS is required to identify and implement 
non-discretionary reasonable and prudent measures (RPMs) necessary or 
appropriate to minimize the impacts of any incidental take, as well as 
Terms and Conditions (T/C) for implementing each RPM. RPMs and T/C 
cannot alter the basic design, location, scope, duration, or timing of 
the action, and may involve only minor changes.
    Five RPMs and T/Cs were identified in the most recent Biological 
Opinion, as amended on February 5, 2009. Framework 22 includes 
management measures to comply with the first of these RPMs, which 
required a limit of fishing effort in the Mid-Atlantic during times 
when sea turtle distribution is expected to overlap with scallop 
fishing activity. The Biological Opinion required that this restriction 
be limited to a level that will not result in more than a minor impact 
on the scallop fishery.
    For FYs 2011 through 2013, Framework 22 defines ``more than a minor 
impact'' on the fishery as one that would result in a 10-percent or 
greater shift in baseline effort from the Mid-Atlantic during June 15 
through October 31 into other areas and times of year when sea turtle 
interactions are less likely. This definition, as well as management 
measures to comply with the Biological Opinion and any future 
Biological Opinions, will be re-evaluated for FY 2013 and future 
fishing years in subsequent framework actions. An informal consultation 
under the Endangered Species Act is being prepared to analyze the 
impact of the Framework 22 on threatened and endangered sea turtles. 
That informal consultation will be completed prior to the decision to 
approve or disapprove all or part of Framework 22, but NMFS

[[Page 23947]]

has preliminarily determined that fishing activities pursuant to 
Framework 22 will not affect endangered and threatened species or 
critical habitat in any manner not considered in prior consultations on 
this fishery.
    For FYs 2011 through 2013, Framework 22 proposes that each full-
time and part-time vessel would be restricted to taking one access area 
trip to areas located in the Mid-Atlantic (i.e., HC and Delmarva) 
during the period June 15 through October 31 of each specified FY. 
Although Framework 22 does not specifically outline which LA permit 
categories would be affected by this one-trip restriction, NMFS 
clarifies that this specific trip restriction is applicable to both 
part-time and full-time vessels because vessels in both permit 
categories would both be able to take up to two trips in the Mid-
Atlantic. However, Framework 22 does include an additional measure 
specific measure intended for full-time vessels: If a vessel has traded 
access area trips with another vessel so that it has a total allocation 
of four trips in the Mid-Atlantic access areas, the vessel would be 
able to fish up to two of the four trips during the period June 15 
through October 31. This measure is only applicable to full-time 
vessels because part-time vessels are only allocated a total of two 
access area trips to be fished in any open access area. Occasional 
vessels would not be affected by this measure because they would only 
be allocated a single access area trip. This provision is included in 
order to minimize any distributional impacts that may result from the 
proposed ``split fleet'' trip random allocation assignment and allows 
for more flexibility in access area trip exchanges. LAGC vessels 
fishing in the Mid-Atlantic access areas under the fleet-wide IFQ trips 
would also not be affected by this trip restriction.
    As with similar measures implemented through Framework 21 (75 FR 
36559; June 28, 2010), the Council proposed this trip restriction 
measure with the intention that there would be no change in the 
possession limit for trips taken during June 15 through October 31 of 
each year, and that the broken trip provision would apply to all trips. 
In order to be consistent with the Council's intention while also 
taking into account the fact that vessels can end a ``full-trip'' early 
and declare an additional trip as a compensation trip (thus declaring 
two trips to land the possession limit of a single full-trip), and to 
be consistent with how this measure was implemented and enforced in FY 
2010, NMFS proposes, under the authority of section 305(d) of the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act, to monitor compliance with the trip restriction 
using pounds landed during June 15 through October 31, rather than trip 
declarations, which could result in landings that are less than the 
allowable trip possession limit. For example, full-time and part-time 
LA vessels would be restricted to landing a maximum of 18,000 lb (8,165 
kg) for full-time vessels and 14,400 lb (6,532 kg) for part-time 
vessels from those areas (i.e., the equivalent of one full access area 
trip, depending on the permit category's possession limit). 
Additionally, if a full-time vessel has acquired four Mid-Atlantic 
access trips due to a trip exchange(s), that vessel would be restricted 
to landing a combined maximum of 36,000 lb (16,329 kg) from HC and 
Delmarva (i.e., the equivalent of two full access area trips). 
Compensation trips may not be combined during this time period in a way 
that would allow more than 14,400 lb (6,532 kg) for part-time vessels, 
18,000 lb (8,165 kg) for full-time vessels, or 36,000 lb (16,329 kg) 
for full-time vessels with a total allocation of four Mid-Atlantic 
access area trips, to be landed from HC and Delmarva, combined, from 
June 15 through October 31 of FYs 2011 through 2013. For example, if a 
full-time vessel is allocated two total trips into the Mid-Atlantic 
access areas and that vessel declared and subsequently broke one of the 
two trips into Mid-Atlantic access areas prior to June 15, it would 
have one full trip (i.e., 18,000 lb, 8,165 kg) available for use during 
the trip-restriction window. In that case, the vessel could only 
harvest up to 18,000 lb (8,165 kg) total from June 15 through October 
31, in the Mid-Atlantic access areas, either by fishing its 
compensation trip and part of its full access area trip or by fishing 
only one full access area trip and waiting to declare the compensation 
trip on or after November 1. If a vessel fishes any part of an access 
area trip in HC or Delmarva during this time period (i.e., starts a 
trip on June 13 and ends the trip on June 15), landings from that trip 
would count towards the one- or two-trip limit. The additional pounds 
allocated to vessels with on-board observers during trips taken within 
this time period would not count towards the aforementioned possession 
and landing restrictions.
    Because this action would be implemented mid-year, and the current 
regulations are inconsistent with the proposed specifications, it is 
possible that full-time and part-time vessels could exceed their final 
FY 2011 access area trip restrictions. Framework 22 did not address 
this possible inconsistency. To address this possibility of exceeding 
the trip-restriction measure outlined in Framework 22, NMFS proposes 
the measure described below under the authority of section 305(d) of 
the Magnuson-Stevens Act. If the proposed measure is implemented after 
June 15, 2011, a full-time or part-time vessel that landed more than 
18,000 lb (8,165 kg) or 14,400 lb (6,532 kg), respectively (i.e., more 
than the equivalent of one full access area trip), between June 15, 
2011, and the implementation of Framework 22, that vessel would be 
prevented from taking an access area trip in FY 2012 in the Mid-
Atlantic during June 15 through October. Alternatively, a full-time 
vessel could make up for the overage by trading in trips so that it had 
a total of four trips allocated into the Mid-Atlantic access areas and 
continue to fish up to a maximum of 36,000 lb (16,329 kg) through 
October 31, 2011 (i.e., the equivalent of two full access area trips).
    Framework 22 did not include a measure that would continue the 
Delmarva seasonal closure in September and October. Thus, if Framework 
22 is approved, this closure, implemented through Framework 21 and 
currently included in the regulations, would cease to exist.

Elimination of the GB Access Area Rotational Schedule

    This action proposes to eliminate the default GB access area 
schedule that was implemented through Framework 16 to the FMP (69 FR 
63460; November 2, 2004). The Council intended that this default cycle 
would be in place until the Council modified it through a future 
action. The schedule has based access area openings on the premise that 
an area would be open for 1 year, followed by a 2-year closure. 
However, the schedule has been consistently revised in framework 
actions based on area-specific scallop biomass projections. The pre-
defined schedule has led to inconsistencies between roll-over measures 
at the start of a FY when a framework is delayed and unnecessary 
confusion. This proposed measure would remove the schedule from the 
regulations, allowing for the GB access area scheduled openings to be 
based on updated resource information. Third-year default measures 
(e.g., FY 2013) would provide the access area schedule for a subsequent 
FY if the subsequent framework action is delayed past the start of the 
FY.

Classification

    Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the 
NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined

[[Page 23948]]

that the proposed rule is consistent with the FMP, other provisions of 
the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further 
consideration after public comment. The regulatory language proposed in 
this action has incorporated, where applicable, the regulatory language 
proposed by Amendment 15.
    This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for 
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
    An IRFA has been prepared, as required by section 603 of the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The IRFA consists of Framework 22 
analyses, its draft IRFA, and the preamble to this action. To some 
degree, this IRFA overlaps, and should be considered in conjunction, 
with the IRFA for Amendment 15, which provides the basis and authority 
for many measures in Framework 22. A summary of the analysis follows.

Statement of Objective and Need

    This action proposes the management measures and specifications for 
the Atlantic sea scallop fishery for FY 2011 and FY 2012, with FY 2013 
default measures. A description of the action, why it is being 
considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained in 
Framework 22 and the preamble of this proposed rule and are not 
repeated here.

Description and Estimate of Number of Small Entities to Which the Rule 
Would Apply

    The RFA defines a small business entity in any fish-harvesting or 
hatchery business as a firm that is independently owned and operated 
and not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), 
with receipts of up to $4 million annually. The vessels in the Atlantic 
sea scallop fishery are considered small business entities because all 
of them grossed less than $3 million according to the dealer's data for 
FYs 1994 to 2009. In FY 2009, total average revenue per full-time 
scallop vessel was just over $1 million, and total average scallop 
revenue per general category vessel was just under $80,000. The IRFA 
for this and prior Scallop FMP actions does not consider individual 
entity ownership of multiple vessels. More information about common 
ownership is being gathered, but the effects of common ownership 
relative to small versus large entities under the RFA is still unclear 
and will be addressed in future analyses.
    The Office of Advocacy at the Small Business Association (SBA) 
suggests two criteria to consider in determining the significance of 
regulatory impacts; namely, disproportionality and profitability. The 
disproportionality criterion compares the effects of the regulatory 
action on small versus large entities (using the SBA-approved size 
definition of ``small entity''), not the difference between segments of 
small entities. Framework 22 is not expected to have significant 
regulatory impacts on the basis of the disproportionality criterion, 
because all entities are considered to be small entities in the scallop 
fishery and, therefore, the proposed action would not place a 
substantial number of small entities at a significant competitive 
disadvantage relative to large entities. A summary of the economic 
impacts relative to the profitability criterion is provided below under 
``Economic Impacts of Proposed Measures and Alternatives.'' The 
proposed regulations would affect vessels with LA and LAGC scallop 
permits. The Framework 22 document provides extensive information on 
the number and size of vessels and small businesses that would be 
affected by the proposed regulations, by port and state. There were 313 
vessels that obtained full-time LA permits in 2010, including 250 
dredge, 52 small-dredge and 11 scallop trawl permits. In the same year, 
there were also 34 part-time LA permits in the sea scallop fishery. No 
vessels were issued occasional scallop permits. By the start of FY 
2010, the first year of the LAGC IFQ program, 362 IFQ permits 
(including 40 IFQ permits issued to vessels with a LA scallop permit), 
127 NGOM, and 294 incidental catch permits were issued. Since all 
scallop permits are limited access, vessel owners would only cancel 
permits if they decide to stop fishing for scallops on the permitted 
vessel permanently or if they transfer IFQ to another IFQ vessel and 
permanently relinquish the vessel's scallop permit. This is likely to 
be infrequent due to the value of retaining the permit. As such, the 
number of scallop permits could decline over time, but would likely be 
less than 10 permits per year.

Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 
Requirements

    This action contains no new collection-of-information, reporting, 
and recordkeeping requirements. It does not duplicate, overlap, or 
conflict with any other Federal law.

Economic Impacts of Proposed Measures and Alternatives

Summary of the Aggregate Economic Impacts

    A detailed analysis of the economic impacts of the proposed actions 
may be found in Section 5.4 of the Framework 22 document. All economic 
values are presented in terms of 2010 dollars and projected economic 
values presented below use a 7-percent discount rate to compare results 
to current values.
    Framework 22 would be implemented after the start of FY 2011 (March 
1, 2011) and the FY 2010 management measures and allocations are 
extended into FY 2011 until the proposed action is implemented. These 
current roll-over measures include open area LA allocation that are 
higher than proposed under Framework 22 (i.e., 38 DAS per full-time LA 
vessel, 15 DAS per part-time vessel, and 3 DAS per occasional vessel). 
Additionally, although the total number of access area trips allocated 
to LA vessels would remain the same under Framework 22 as what is 
currently allocated for the start of FY 2011 (i.e., four trips), the 
access areas from where these trips can be taken will differ. Framework 
22 included a number of provisions to account for the inconsistencies 
between allocations in effect at the start of FY 2011 and those that 
would be implemented under Framework 22. Generally, any overages 
incurred in FY 2011 will result in a pound-for-pound (or DAS-for-DAS) 
deduction in FY 2012 to account for the excess landings and fishing 
effort not accounted for in the Framework 22 biomass projections and 
resulting annual allocations. As a result, vessels that choose to 
exceed the FY 2011 allocations proposed in Framework 22 would have 
slightly higher revenues than the estimated fleet average in FY 2011, 
resulting in positive short-term impact on those individual vessels in 
FY 2011. Subsequently, those vessels receive reduced individual 
allocations in FY 2012 to account for the FY 2011 overage incurred by 
the vessel. This reduction would result in slightly lower revenues than 
the estimated average in FY 2012, resulting in a negative short-term 
impact on those vessels in FY 2012. However, over the long-term, the 
overage provisions proposed in Framework 22 are expected to reduce the 
negative impacts of overfishing in FY 2011 on the scallop resource. 
Therefore, these measures will have positive fleet-wide impacts on 
landings and revenues over the long term.
    The aggregate economic impacts of the proposed measures, including 
the open area DAS and access area allocations for LA vessels and ACLs 
for the LAGC fishery, are expected to be positive in both in the short-
term (FYs 2011-2012) and the long-term (FYs 2011-2022) compared to the 
No Action alternative and all other alternatives considered. Estimated 
fleet revenues

[[Page 23949]]

under the proposed action in FY 2011 are slightly lower than the 
average fleet revenues in FYs 2009 and 2010. In FY 2012, revenues are 
expected to exceed the average revenues in FYs 2009 and 2010. The 
proposed action is not expected to have short-term adverse impacts on 
the revenues and profits of the scallop vessels compared to recent 
levels. The impact of four allocation alternatives were evaluated in 
Framework 22: One alternative proposing a new closure in the Great 
South Channel (GSC; the ``GSC closure'' alternative); one alternative 
with full-time ``split fleet'' allocations and no new closure (the 
proposed action); one alternative with identical access area 
allocations (i.e., all full-time vessels are allocated access into the 
same areas) (the ``identical fleet allocation'' alternative) and the No 
Action alternative. With the exception of the No Action alternative, 
the total number of access area trips allocated to LA vessels remains 
the same for all alternatives.
    The definition of ``No Action'' refers to the continuation of t