Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery; Framework Adjustment 23, 52-66 [2011-33182]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 1 (Tuesday, January 3, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 52-66]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-33182]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 648

[Docket No. 111011616-1750-01]
RIN 0648-BB51


Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Sea Scallop 
Fishery; Framework Adjustment 23

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

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.

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

[[Page 53]]

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes to approve and implement regulations through 
Framework Adjustment 23 to the Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery Management 
Plan, which was developed and adopted by the New England Fishery 
Management Council and submitted to NMFS for approval. Framework 
Adjustment 23 includes measures to: Minimize impacts on sea turtles 
through the requirement of a turtle deflector dredge; improve the 
effectiveness of the scallop fishery's accountability measures related 
to the yellowtail flounder annual catch limits; adjust the limited 
access general category Northern Gulf of Maine management program; and 
modify the scallop vessel monitoring system trip notification 
procedures to improve flexibility for the scallop fleet.

DATES: Comments must be received by 5 p.m., local time, on January 18, 
2012.

ADDRESSES: An environmental assessment (EA) was prepared for Framework 
23 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 23, 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.
    You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-
2011-0255, by any of the following methods:
     Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public 
comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal www.regulations.gov. To 
submit comments via the e-Rulemaking Portal, first click the ``submit a 
comment'' icon, then enter NOAA-NMFS-2011-0255 in the keyword search. 
Locate the document you wish to comment on from the resulting list and 
click on the ``Submit a Comment'' icon on the right of that line.
     Mail: Submit written comments to 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 23 Proposed Rule.''
     Fax: (978) 281-9135; Attn: Emily Gilbert.
    Instructions: Comments must be submitted by one of the above 
methods to ensure that the comments are received, documented, and 
considered by NMFS. Comments sent by any other method, to any other 
address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, 
may not be considered. All comments received are a part of the public 
record and will generally be posted for public viewing on 
www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying 
information (e.g., name, address, etc.) submitted voluntarily by the 
sender will be publicly accessible. Do not submit confidential business 
information, or otherwise sensitive or protected information. NMFS will 
accept anonymous comments (enter ``N/A'' in the required fields if you 
wish to remain anonymous). Attachments to electronic comments will be 
accepted in Microsoft Word or 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 New England Fishery Management Council (Council) adopted 
Framework Adjustment 23 (Framework 23) on September 27, 2011, initially 
submitted it to NMFS on October 25, 2011, for review and approval, and 
submitted a revised final framework document on November 30, 2011. 
Framework 23 includes measures that would require the use of a turtle 
deflector dredge (TDD), including where, when, and to which vessels 
this TDD requirement would apply. Framework 23 proposes to revise the 
current accountability measures (AMs) related to the yellowtail 
flounder (YTF) annual catch limits (sub-ACLs) for the Georges Bank (GB) 
and Southern New England/Mid-Atlantic (SNE/MA) YTF stock areas. These 
modifications would only alter the months when a closure would apply 
and would not change the locations for these seasonal closure AMs. 
Framework 23 also includes a change to how scallop landings would be 
applied to the Northern Gulf of Maine Management (NGOM) total allowable 
catch (TAC) when harvested by federally NGOM-permitted vessels. 
Finally, Framework 23 proposes procedural changes to when and where a 
vessel can declare a scallop trip through vessel monitoring systems 
(VMS).
    The Council reviewed the Framework 23 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 Fishery 
Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). This proposed 
rule also includes several revisions to the regulatory text that were 
duplicative and unnecessary, outdated, unclear, or otherwise could be 
improved through revision. These were not recommended by the Council, 
but are proposed by NMFS under the authority of section 305(d) of the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act, which provides that the Secretary of Commerce may 
promulgate regulations necessary to ensure that amendments to a fishery 
management plan (FMP) are carried out in accordance with the FMP. These 
additional measures are identified and described below.

Requirement to Use a TDD

    The proposed measure would require all limited access (LA) vessels 
(regardless of permit category or dredge size), and limited access 
general category (LAGC) Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) vessels that 
have a dredge with a width of 10.5 ft (3.2 m) or greater, to use a TDD 
in the Mid-Atlantic (west of 71 [deg]W long.) from May through October. 
According to recent research indicating where sea turtle interactions 
most often occur, the proposed area for the TDD requirement includes 
the majority of overlap between the scallop fishery and expected turtle 
interactions in the Mid-Atlantic. The majority of takes for the scallop 
fishery have been loggerheads, but Kemps ridley turtles and one green 
sea turtle have also been observed to interact with scallop gear as 
well. Overall, data suggest that sea turtles are most likely to be 
present in areas that overlap with the scallop fishery in the Mid-
Atlantic between May and October. All observed takes of sea turtles in 
the scallop dredge fishery have been recorded in June through October. 
May was included in the proposed action because, based primarily on 
satellite, stranding, and projected sea turtle bycatch data, sea 
turtles are expected to be in the Mid-Atlantic during that month as 
well. Several sources of satellite data recorded sea turtles in 
offshore waters that overlap with the scallop fishery during May, and 
sea surface temperature and turtle distribution information indicate 
that waters are warm enough to support sea turtles during that time. In 
addition, there have been observed sea turtle takes in both the bottom 
trawl and sink gillnet fisheries in May, which indicates a potential 
for interactions with scallop fishing during that month as well.
    The TDD is designed to reduce injury and mortality of sea turtles 
that come into contact with scallop dredges on the sea floor by 
deflecting sea turtles over the dredge frame and dredge bag. The TDD 
includes five modifications to the standard commercial dredge frame:

[[Page 54]]

    (1) The cutting bar must be located in front of the depressor 
plate.
    (2) The angle between the front edge of the cutting bar and the top 
of the dredge frame must be less than or equal to 45 degrees.
    (3) All bale bars must be removed, except the outer bale (single or 
double) bars and the center support beam, leaving an otherwise 
unobstructed space between the cutting bar and forward bale wheels, if 
present. The center support beam must be less than 6 in (15.24 cm) 
wide. For the purpose of flaring and safe handling of the dredge, a 
minor appendage not to exceed 12 in (30.5 cm) in length may be attached 
to the outer bale bar.
    (4) Struts must be spaced no more than 12 in (30.5 cm) apart from 
each other.
    (5) The TDD must include a straight extension (``bump out'') 
connecting the outer bale bars to the dredge frame. This ``bump out'' 
must exceed 12 in (30.5 cm) in length.
    Each element of this dredge is based on direct field research that 
has been conducted over several years. The combination of these 
modifications is designed to reduce the likelihood of a sea turtle 
passing under the dredge frame when the gear is on the seafloor, which 
could result in the sea turtle being crushed or injured. For example, 
the cutting bar in a standard dredge is behind and under the depressor 
plate, impeding a sea turtle from rising above the dredge. By moving 
the cutting bar in front of the dredge frame, the TDD would deflect sea 
turtles up and over the dredge. The angle of 45-degrees or less between 
the cutting bar and the top of the frame would provide a smoother 
transition for a sea turtle to move over the dredge, but would maintain 
the same overall height as a standard commercial scallop dredge. The 
requirement to remove the interior bale bars, with the exception of the 
center support bar, would create an unobstructed space for sea turtles 
to escape up and over the dredge, thus maximizing survival. The 
additional allowance for a flaring bar to be attached to the outer bale 
bar was identified during Council deeming of the proposed regulations 
at its November 2011 Council meeting. Gear operators use the flaring 
bar upon initial dredge deployment to position the gear correctly in 
the water before it descends to the sea floor. The flaring bar, a short 
stub (usually no longer than 12 inches (30.5 cm)) welded to the inside 
of the outer bale and close to the frame end, prevents the flaring line 
from sliding up the outer bale, assists in safely positioning the 
dredge once in the water. In a conventional New Bedford style dredge, 
operators usually run the flaring line through the space between the 
outer bale bar and the bale support bar closest to the outer bale bar 
on the side of the dredge that is closest to the vessel when the dredge 
is upright in the setting position. The bale support bars prevents the 
line from sliding up the outer bale to the gooseneck; the flaring line 
can only perform its function if it remains near the frame end. Because 
the TDD has no bale support bars that can prevent the flaring line from 
moving up the bale, the Council voted to include the additional 
allowance of a flaring bar to the outer bale bar in the TDD 
regulations.
    Tests show that sea turtles are less likely to enter the dredge 
with struts spaced less than 12 inches (30.5 cm) from each other than 
with wider spacing of struts. Lastly, the 12 inches (30.5 cm) or 
greater ``bump out'' addresses the potential for sea turtles to get 
caught in the narrow corners of the dredge frame by offering a greater 
area for escape. Tests show that these modifications cumulatively 
benefit sea turtle conservation, while not compromising the structural 
integrity of the dredge design and scallop yield. These TDD components 
could be modified by future actions, if additional modifications are 
developed to further minimize impacts on sea turtles or additions are 
identified that would improve the effectiveness of these measures.
    This action proposes that all LA vessels, regardless of permit 
category or dredge width, and all LAGC IFQ vessels that fish with 
dredge gear greater than or equal to 10.5 feet (3.2 m) in width in the 
applicable area and season would be required to use a TDD. Because the 
bump out modification has not been fully tested on small dredges, 
Framework 23 proposes to exempt LA scallop vessels that use dredges 
with a width less than 10.5 ft (3.2 m) from that requirement of the 
TDD. Thus, LA vessels with smaller dredges would only have to use a TDD 
with the first four modifications listed above. If an LA vessel fishes 
with two dredges at a time, both of which are less than 10.5 ft (3.2 m) 
in width, neither dredge is required to have the bump out extension, 
even though the combined width of both dredges is greater than 10.5 ft 
(3.2 m). The bump out exemption does not apply to LAGC vessels that use 
dredges less than 10.5 ft (3.2 m) wide because such vessels would be 
exempted from the requirement to use a TDD entirely, due to concerns of 
the financial burden that building a new dredge would have on these 
small day boats, which may have lower IFQ allocations. Based on the 
Framework 23 document, if an LAGC vessel fishes with two dredges, both 
of which are less than 10.5 ft (3.2 m) wide, neither dredge would be 
required to comply with the TDD requirements, even though the combined 
width of both dredges is greater than 10.5 ft (3.2 m). The Council's 
Framework 23 document estimated that out of the 179 active LAGC IFQ 
vessels, 85 vessels (47 percent) have a dredge width greater than or 
equal to 10.5 ft (3.2 m) and would be required to use the TDD. The 
remaining 94 LAGC IFQ vessels would be exempt from the TDD requirement 
entirely.
    Due to the time it would take manufacturers to develop TDDs for the 
scallop fishery, this proposed measure would be effective 1 year after 
the effective date of Framework 23, if approved (e.g., if Framework 23 
is effective on March 1, 2012, the TDD regulations would be effective 
March, 1, 2013, and TDDs would be required to be used starting May 1, 
2013). This delay would also give vessel operators and crew time to 
fish with the new dredge design before the TDD season begins.

Adjustments to the AMs Related to the Scallop Fishery's YTF Sub-ACLs

1. Revised AM Closure Schedules
    The proposed action would revise the YTF seasonal closure AM 
schedules in both GB and SNE/MA such that the closures would be during 
months with the highest YTF catch rates, rather than being in place for 
consecutive months beginning at the start of the fishing year (FY). The 
proposed AM adjustments would still only apply to LA vessels. Table 1 
compares the current SNE/MA AM schedule with that proposed under 
Framework 23. The major difference for SNE/MA is that the proposed 
closure schedule would occur in the early spring and winter first, 
rather than starting with the spring and summer, as under the current 
AM for that stock area. AMs would occur in the same FY, with the winter 
closures occurring at the end of the FY. For example, if the scallop 
fishery exceeds its FY 2011 SNE/MA sub-ACL by 7 percent, the proposed 
AM closure for FY 2012 would occur in March, April, and May of 2012, 
and February 2013. The area would not close from June 2012 through 
January 2013.

[[Page 55]]



           Table 1--Comparison of Current SNE/MA AM Schedule and Proposed Schedule Under Framework 23
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Current AM schedule                                           Proposed
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Percent overage                   LA closure             Percent overage             LA closure
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1-2.................................  March.                    2 or less..............  March-April.
3-5.................................  March-April.              2.1-3..................  March-April, and
                                                                                          February.
6-8.................................  March-May.                3.1-7..................  March-May, and
                                                                                          February.
9-12................................  March-June.               7.1-9..................  March-May, and January,
                                                                                          February.
13-14...............................  March-July.               9.1-12.................  Marcy-May, and December-
                                                                                          February.
15..................................  March-August.             12.1-15................  March-June, and
                                                                                          December-February.
16..................................  March-September.          15.1-16................  March-June, and
                                                                                          November-February.
17..................................  March-October.            16.1-18................  March-July, and
                                                                                          November-February.
18..................................  March-November.           18.1-19................  March-August, and
                                                                                          October-February.
19..................................  March-January.            19.1 or more...........  March-February.
20 and higher.......................  March-February.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Tables 2 and 3 compare the current GB AM schedules with those 
proposed under framework 23. The GB AM schedule is still complex 
because the extent of the closure period depends on whether or not 
Closed Area II Scallop Access Area (CAII) is open in the FY following a 
GB sub-ACL overage. In general, the major difference is that the GB AM 
closures begin in the fall, when YT YTF catch rates are highest, 
followed by the winter months. The proposed GB schedule would begin the 
closures at a time of year when scallop meat weights are lowest, thus 
impacts on the scallop resource and fishery should be lower compared to 
closing the area beginning in March through the spring and summer when 
scallop meat weights are larger. Similar to the SNE/MA proposed 
schedule, all closures would occur in the same FY. For example, if the 
FY 2013 sub-ACL was exceeded by 3.5 percent, the resulting FY 2014 a.m. 
(assuming CAII is closed that year) would occur in March, August, 
September, October, November, and December of 2014, and in January and 
February of 2015. The area would be open from April through July of 
2014 in FY 2014. However, if CAII was open in FY 2014, the closure 
would extend from September through November in FY 2014.

  Table 2--Comparison of Current GB AM Schedule and Proposed Schedule Under Framework 23 for Years When CAII Is
                                                      Open
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Current AM schedule                                           Proposed
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Percent overage                   LA closure.            Percent overage            LA closure.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...................................  March-May.                3 or less..............  October-November.
2-24................................  March-June.               3.1-14.................  September-November.
25-38...............................  March-July.               14.1-16................  September-January.
39-57...............................  March-August.             16.1-39................  August-January.
58-63...............................  March-September.          39.1-56................  July-January.
64-65...............................  March-October.            Greater than 56........  March-February.
66-68...............................  March-November.
69..................................  March-December.
70 and higher.......................  March-February.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  Table 3--Comparison of Current GB AM Schedule and Proposed Schedule Under Framework 23 for Years When CAII Is
                                                     Closed
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Current AM schedule                                           Proposed
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Overage                       LA closure                 Overage                 LA closure
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...................................  March-May.                1.9 or less............  September-November.
2...................................  March-June.               2.0-2.9................  August-January.
3...................................  March-July.               3.0-3.9................  March, and August-
                                                                                          February.
4-5.................................  March-August.             4.0-4.9................  March, and July-
                                                                                          February.
6 and higher........................  March-February.           5.0-5.9................  March-May, and July-
                                                                                          February.
                                                                6.0 or greater.........  March-February.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 56]]

2. Re-Evaluating AM Determination Mid-Year
    This action proposes a modification to the YTF AM regulations that 
would allow NMFS to re-examine the implementation of an AM once the FY 
has ended and all data are available. After the end of a given FY, if 
available end-of-year data results in different projected YTF catch 
levels than those that determined the initial announcement of any AM 
triggering (e.g., the extent of the estimated overage was higher or 
lower than originally estimated, or that an AM should or should not 
have been triggered), the AM determination would be adjusted to reflect 
the best information available. Currently the only sub-ACLs allocated 
to the scallop fishery are for SNE/MA YTF and GB YTF, but the Council's 
intent is for this flexibility to apply to any species' sub-ACL, should 
they be implemented in the scallop fishery in the future.
    On or before January 15 of each year, the Regional Administrator 
determines if the bycatch sub-ACLs are projected to be exceeded for 
that FY. For example, based on the current process, the projection of 
2012 YTF catch in the scallop fishery will be available by January 15, 
2013, using all available data from that FY to date (i.e. March 1, 
2012, through December 2012). Projections must be made for the 
remaining months of the FY using data from the previous year; for 
example, January and February values for 2013 must be projected using 
data from January and February 2012 in order to calculate a total 
estimate of YTF catch for FY2012. Several months after the FY is 
complete, a final estimate of YTF catch in the scallop fishery will be 
completed when all observer and scallop catch data are available. The 
timing of the final YTF year-end estimate is ultimately based on the 
availability of the observer data for the previous FY. For example, 
this year the January and February 2011 data were not available until 
September 2011, and the final estimate was provided shortly thereafter. 
Ideally, observer data in open areas will be available 90 days after 
the completion of an observed trip. As such, the earliest month that a 
full FY's observer data would be available would be June, roughly 3 
months after the last observed trip during the previous FY. If the 
final estimate of YTF catch for Year 1, available several months after 
the start of the FY in Year 2, differs from the original estimate 
provided in January of Year 1, this action would give the Regional 
Administrator the authority to revise the AM for the YTF sub-ACLs based 
on the final estimates.
    Changing an AM mid-year would be complicated by the fact that some 
of the AM closure schedules begin during the first few months of the FY 
and may have passed before final estimates of YTF catch are available. 
For example, if the preliminary estimate of FY 2012 SNE/MA YTF catch in 
January 2013 is estimated to be 5 percent over the sub-ACL, AMs will 
trigger and the limited access fishery will be prohibited from fishing 
in specific areas in SNE/MA for March through May 2013, and February 
2014, based on the proposed YTF closure schedule in this action. If, in 
June 2013, the final estimate of SNE/MA YTF catch concludes that the 
scallop fishery caught only 1.5 percent over the sub-ACL, the closure 
should have been a 2-month closure in March and April 2013. Since the 
area was already closed through May, the solution would be to open the 
area for the last month of the AM closure (i.e., February 2013) because 
the final overage estimate was less than the original projection. If 
the final estimate is higher than the original projection, this action 
would also give the Regional Administrator the authority to close the 
area for longer than the original schedule. Due to the timing of the 
current AMs, there may not always be an opportunity to adjust AMs if 
the seasonal closure has already occurred during that FY, but the 
intent is to be more flexible to incorporate updated information when 
possible. This action does not give the Regional Administrator 
authority to impose AMs outside the scope of approved measures.

Modifications to the NGOM Management Program

    To address some concerns regarding the management of the NGOM, 
Framework 23 proposes to allow federally permitted NGOM vessels to 
declare a state waters-only trip within the NGOM and not have those 
landings applied to the Federal NGOM TAC. If the vessel decides to fish 
exclusively in state waters within the NGOM area (i.e., MA, NH, and ME 
state waters), on a trip-by-trip basis, the scallop catch from state 
water only trips would not be applied against the Federal NGOM TAC. On 
a trip-by-trip basis, each NGOM vessel can decide which area it is 
going to fish in (i.e., Federal or state NGOM trip). A NGOM vessel 
could still fish in both state and Federal waters on a single trip, but 
that vessel would need to declare a Federal trip before leaving, and 
the entire catch from that trip would be applied to the Federal TAC, 
even if some of it was harvested in state waters.
    Currently, NGOM and IFQ vessels that declare NGOM trips must have 
all landings applied to the Federal TAC, regardless of whether or not 
they were fishing in state or Federal waters of the NGOM. Although this 
action would make adjustments for NGOM-permitted vessels, the Council 
did not include a similar provision for IFQ vessels that fish in the 
NGOM. As a result, if this measure is approved for NGOM-permitted 
vessels, IFQ vessels would continue to have all of their landings 
applied to the NGOM TAC, as well as their IFQ allocations, when fishing 
in Federal or state waters within the NGOM.
    Once the Federal TAC is closed, all federally permitted scallop 
vessels (i.e., LA, IFQ, and NGOM) are prohibited from fishing in any 
part of the NGOM until the next FY, unless they permanently relinquish 
their Federal NGOM permits and fish exclusively in state waters. 
Framework 23 did not change this provision. NGOM vessels would no 
longer be able to declare state-only NGOM trips after the effective 
date of the Federal NGOM closure.
    To date, the annual NGOM TAC of 70,000 lb (31.75 mt) has not been 
fully harvested in any FY, and most NGOM landings come from vessels 
fishing in state waters. Framework 23 does not change the NGOM hard TAC 
of 70,000 lb (31.75 mt). The Council will reevaluate the NGOM TAC in 
the next framework adjustment that would set the specifications for FYs 
2013 and 2014.
    Although this action would apply to all NGOM permitted vessels, the 
ability for such vessels to fish in state waters within the NGOM (i.e., 
ME, NH, MA state waters) depends on whether or not such vessels have 
the necessary state permits to do so. In addition, NGOM permit holders 
would still have to abide by the more restrictive possession limit of 
either their state or Federal NGOM scallop permit. This action does not 
exempt vessels from their Federal possession limit when fishing in 
state waters of the NGOM. To be exempt from Federal scallop possession 
limits, a state would have to apply for such exemption through the 
scallop state waters exemption program.

Adjustments to VMS Trip Notifications for Scallop Vessels

    This action proposes a measure that would change the current VMS 
trip declaration requirement for scallop vessels only, allowing them to 
declare a scallop trip anywhere shoreward of the VMS Demarcation Line, 
rather than from a designated port. Under current regulations, vessels 
that are involved in

[[Page 57]]

VMS fisheries (e.g., vessels with scallop, monkfish, multispecies, 
surfclam/quahog, and herring permits) must make their VMS trip 
declarations from inside a port. This proposed measure would allow 
scallop vessels the authority to declare their trips outside of a 
designated port, prior to crossing the VMS Demarcation Line and 
fishing, but would not change the trip declaration requirements for any 
other fishery. The Council's rationale behind this alternative is to 
improve safety by eliminating the requirement that sometimes results in 
scallop vessels steaming into unfamiliar ports to declare their scallop 
trips before being able to fish. The Council may choose to address this 
issue in other VMS fisheries in future actions for those FMPs, and NMFS 
recommends that the Council discuss this further for other FMPs in 
order to be consistent, where possible, with addressing safety issues 
across all fisheries requiring VMS.
    The Council has proposed this action for LA, LAGC IFQ, and LAGC 
NGOM vessels, although many of these scallop-permitted vessels would 
likely continue to declare from port, regardless of the option to do 
otherwise. The only vessels that would likely take advantage of this 
increased flexibility in trip notifications would be limited access 
vessels declaring scallop DAS trips for fishing grounds that are far 
from their home port. These trips are what most commonly require a 
vessel to go into an unfamiliar port to declare into the DAS program 
because DAS begin to accrue once a vessel crosses to the seaward side 
of the VMS Demarcation Line and it is not possible, safe, or 
practicable to remain inside the VMS Demarcation Line throughout the 
steam closer to the fishing grounds. Because the current estimate of 
landings-per-unit-effort (LPUE) is currently calculated based on DAS 
charged, this action would not change how LPUE is estimated, and 
increased catch is not expected.

Other Clarifications and Modifications

    This proposed rule includes several revisions to the regulatory 
text to address text that is duplicative and unnecessary, outdated, 
unclear, or otherwise could be improved through revision. For example, 
there are terms and cross references in the current regulations that 
are now inaccurate due to the regulatory adjustments made through 
Amendment 15 rulemaking (i.e., references to ``TAC'' in some cases 
should now refer to ``annual catch limits (ACLs)''). NMFS proposes to 
revise the regulations to clarify the terminology intended by Amendment 
15 to the FMP (76 FR 43746, July 21, 2011) and to provide more ease in 
locating these regulations by updating cross references.
    This action also proposes revisions that would clarify the intent 
of certain regulations. For example, the VMS regulations are clarified 
in Sec.  648.10 to more clearly indicate the reporting requirements for 
various aspects of the scallop fishery (e.g., pre-landing notification 
requirements and state water exemption trip declaration requirements), 
to reflect the instructions currently available through on-board VMS 
units. Additionally, there are currently prohibitions in Sec.  648.14 
that imply that NGOM and incidental scallop vessels may have more than 
their allowable possession limit if they are assigned industry-funded 
observers during scallop trips. This text is unnecessary and confusing 
because NGOM and incidental scallop vessels are not part of the scallop 
industry-funded observer program and would not be assigned such 
observers to begin with. As such, NMFS proposes to remove these 
references from the regulations. NMFS also proposes to clarify how LAGC 
vessels are charged fees by observer providers in Sec.  648.14, since 
such an explanation exists for LA vessels. A restriction on 
transferring IFQ in Sec.  648.53(h)(5)(iii) would be clarified to allow 
vessels to complete multiple IFQ transfers during the course of a FY, 
as long as the transfers are for a portion of the IFQ and do not exceed 
the total yearly allocation. NMFS received some applications for 
permanent transfers of 100 percent of the vessel's IFQ in the same FY 
that IFQ was already leased from the same vessel. While this remains 
prohibited because transfers of allocation percentage is effectively a 
transfer of pounds, the restriction was not intended to prevent someone 
from completing multiple transfers of portions of their IFQ. As a 
result, the regulations would be clarified to indicate that such 
multiple IFQ transfers are possible during a single FY.
    NMFS also proposes to remove outdated text regarding LAGC quarterly 
TACs, which ceased to exist after the IFQ program was implemented in FY 
2010, and references to the CAII rotational management schedule, which 
was intended to be removed in the rulemaking for Framework 22, along 
with the schedules for the other GB access areas. NMFS proposes these 
changes consistent with section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
    NMFS also proposes pursuant to its authority under section 305(d) 
of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, a change to the coordinates of the Closed 
Area I (CAI) access area and the CAI North and South essential fish 
habitat (EFH) areas. These coordinates were initially developed through 
Framework 16 to the FMP (69 FR 63460, November 2, 2004) and recently 
implemented through Amendment 15 for FY 2011. During the course of FY 
2011, vessels fishing in the CAI access area discovered that the new 
coordinates for the access area created a western boundary that is \1/
4\ of a mile (0.4 km) to the east of the CAI western boundary, 
described in Sec.  648.81 (a)(1) as the line extending between the 
points CI1 (41[deg]30' N lat.; 69[deg]23' W long.) and CI2 (40[deg]45' 
N lat.; 68[deg]45' W long.). However, the access area was designed to 
cover the whole middle portion of CAI and extend out to the CAI western 
boundary. In reviewing the coordinates, NMFS found that the western 
coordinates for the CAI access area were established using imprecise 
matching of coordinates to the CAI western boundary line. NMFS proposes 
to update these coordinates in the regulations to extend the western 
boundary of CAI. To avoid any confusion on intent, in the case that 
various mapping software used by the industry or NOAA's Office of Law 
Enforcement provide slightly different results, NMFS also clarifies 
that the western boundary of the CAI access area is the same as the 
western boundary of CAI that lies between the two western-most 
coordinates of the CAI access area. Since these two coordinates also 
are included in the coordinates of the CAI North and CAI South EFH 
closed areas, NMFS proposes the same changes to those EFH area 
coordinates as well.
    Finally, although this does not affect the current regulations, 
NMFS wants to clarify an error in table 3 of the final rule to 
Framework 22 (76 FR 43774; July 21, 2011). The scallop sub-ACL values 
of YTF in GB and SNE/MA were mistakenly reversed in this table and 
should have stated that the FY 2011 sub-ACLs in GB and SNE/MA are 200.8 
mt and 82 mt, respectively, and the FY 2012 sub-ACLs in GB and SNE/MA 
are 307.5 mt and 127 mt, respectively. The regulations already indicate 
the correct values for these FYs so this action proposes no changes.

Classification

    Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the 
NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined 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.
    This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for 
purposes of Executive Order 12866. An

[[Page 58]]

IRFA has been prepared, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (RFA). The IRFA consists of Framework 23 analyses, its 
draft IRFA, and the preamble to this proposed rule. A summary of the 
analysis follows.

Statement of Objective and Need

    This action proposes four specific management measures applicable 
to the scallop fishery for FY 2012 and beyond. A description of the 
action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action 
are contained in Framework 23 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. All of 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 2010. In FY 2010, total average revenue 
per full-time scallop vessel was just over $1.2 million, and total 
average scallop revenue per LAGC vessel was just under $120,000. The 
IRFA for this and prior Scallop FMP actions do 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. Because Framework 23 estimates that no individual 
vessel grosses more than $3 million in any FY from 1994 through 2010, 
all permit holders in the sea scallop fishery were considered small 
business entities for the purpose of the IRFA analysis. Therefore, it 
is not necessary to perform the disproportionality assessment to 
compare the effects of the regulatory actions on small versus 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 23 
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 (i.e., vessels that receive annual scallop allocations that 
are 40 percent of what is allocated to full-time vessels, based on the 
permit eligibility criteria established through Amendment 4 to the 
Scallop FMP) LA permits in the sea scallop fishery. No vessels were 
issued occasional scallop permits (i.e., vessels that receive annual 
scallop allocations that are 8.33 percent of what is allocated to full-
time vessels, based on the permit eligibility criteria established 
through Amendment 4 to the Scallop FMP). In FY 2010, the first year of 
the LAGC IFQ program, 333 active IFQ (including IFQ permits issued to 
vessels with a LA scallop permit), 122 NGOM, and 285 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. 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 the decline 
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, 
or 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 
can be found in Section 5.4 of the Framework 23 document. All economic 
values are presented in terms of 2010 dollars.
    In summary, in the short-term, the aggregate economic impacts of 
the proposed measures on small businesses could range from a low 
negative to low positive, depending on the extent that positive impacts 
of the measures outweigh the costs of TDD requirement. These measures 
are not expected to have significant impacts on the viability of the 
vessels, especially in a highly profitable industry like the scallop 
fishery. Over the long term, Framework 23 is expected to have positive 
economic impacts on the participants of the scallop fishery and related 
businesses. The proposed action is not expected to have a considerable 
adverse impact on the net revenues and profits of the majority of the 
scallop vessels in the short and the medium term.

Economic Impacts of the Proposed Measures and Alternatives

1. Requirement To Use a TDD
    The proposed action would require the use of a TDD on scallop 
vessels from May 1 through October 31 in waters west of 71[deg] W long. 
This requirement would be applicable to all LA vessels (regardless of 
permit category or dredge size) and to those LAGC vessels that fish 
with a dredge(s) that has a width of 10.5 ft (3.2 m) or greater. The 
Council estimates that the cost of a new dredge plus the cost of 
freight would be about $5,000 for a standard dredge, and $2,500 to 
$3,000 for smaller dredges. The cost of buying a dredge and freight 
cost would be a very small proportion (1 to 2 percent) of the average 
scallop revenues per LA vessel, even when the maximum estimate of costs 
was used. For an average LAGC vessel that uses only one dredge, the 
cost could be small, as well, amounting to about 2 percent of scallop 
revenue. Alternatively, for some vessels that use two dredges, the cost 
of buying and installing the dredges could be higher. Some of these 
vessels could choose to fish during times and areas for which a TDD is 
not required. The Council considered two other alternatives regarding 
which vessels would be required to use a TDD: One would have required 
the TDD for all LA vessels and no LAGC vessels, and thus would not have 
any adverse impacts on the LAGC IFQ vessels. The other non-selected 
alternative would have required the use of TDD for all vessels, 
including all LA and LAGC IFQ vessels, and would have had negative 
impacts on some LAGC IFQ vessels that use smaller dredges. There would 
be some short-term costs associated with buying and installing TDDs 
under all alternatives, but these costs are not large and are not 
expected to have adverse impacts on the financial viability of small 
business entities. Indirect positive economic benefits over the medium 
to long term are expected to outweigh these costs under the proposed 
alternative, particularly

[[Page 59]]

because the proposed alternative exempts LAGC vessels that use small 
dredges.
    The option to have the TDD be required west of 71[deg] W long. 
covers the majority of areas the scallop fishery and expected turtle 
interactions in the Mid-Atlantic overlap and excludes GB, where 
interactions with turtles are very rare. This proposed option would 
minimize the economic impacts for scallop vessels that fish solely in 
GB east of 71[deg] W long. and those that fish in the Gulf of Maine. 
The proposed action would exempt LAGC vessels with dredges less than 
10.5 ft (3.2 m) in width from TDD requirement, mitigating some of these 
negative impacts on the smaller boats fishing in those areas. The only 
other location option related to the TDD requirement was the area used 
to set effort limitations in Framework 22, which is the greatest area 
of overlap in the distribution of scallop fishing gear and sea turtles, 
with the exception of waters due south of Rhode Island. Thus, the 
proposed location option would exclude those areas that LAGC vessels 
are active, and would minimize the negative economic impacts of TDD 
requirement on those vessels. Exemption of LAGC vessels that use a 
dredge less than 10.5 ft (3.2 m) wide would mitigate the impacts of the 
proposed boundary option and minimize the differences between the 
impacts of the two location options considered.
    Based on research indicating that using a TDD is not expected to 
have negative impacts on scallop landings, the season for the TDD 
requirement would probably have marginal economic impacts on the 
fishery overall. LA vessels are unlikely to change dredges during the 
year, once they are required to operate with a TDD during a part of the 
year. Therefore, the relative difference between the proposed season 
(May 1 through October 31) and other options (i.e., May 1 through 
November 1, or June 1 through October 31) is likely to have only 
negligible impacts on these vessels. The difference between the season 
options could impact LAGC IFQ vessels relatively more than the LA 
vessels, but the exemption of LAGC IFQ vessels that use dredges less 
than 10.5 ft (3.2 m) wide would prevent the proposed measure from 
negatively affecting smaller vessels. The increase in costs could also 
be minimized to some degree by leasing of quota to LAGC IFQ vessels 
that fish in other areas. The shortest season considered by the Council 
(June through October) would have had the least impacts, and the 
longest considered season option (May through November) would have had 
the largest impact on vessels and would have impacted a larger 
proportion of landings. The proposed season option would maximize the 
benefits of reducing the impacts on turtles, while not impacting a 
large proportion of scallop landings.
    The proposed implementation date of the TDD requirements, 1 year 
after Framework 23, if approved, is implemented (i.e., May 1, 2013, if 
Framework 23 is implemented on March 1, 2012), would allow 
manufacturers enough time to build dredges and give vessels time to 
fish with the new dredge before the TDD requirement would begin. A 
shorter period for implementation, such as the options for 90 days 
after Framework 23's implementation, would not be feasible because so 
many dredges need to be built, and 180 days after implementation (i.e., 
September 1, 2012, in this example) would not benefit sea turtles very 
much for that FY because TDDs would only be required for 2 months. 
Overall, there are no alternatives that would generate higher economic 
benefits for the participants of the scallop fishery.
2. Adjustments to the AMs Related to the Scallop Fishery's YTF Sub-ACLs
    The proposed action would revise the YTF seasonal closure AM 
schedules in both GB and SNE/MA such that the closures would be during 
months with the highest YTF catch rates when an overage occurs, rather 
than beginning at the start of the FY and running for consecutive 
months under No Action. Overall, these modifications are not expected 
to have large impacts on scallop vessels given that only a small 
percentage of LA scallop landings took place in those areas. Because 
the revised closure schedules include the winter months, shifting 
effort to seasons when the meat weights are larger will benefit the 
scallop resource, increase landings and overall economic benefits for 
the scallop vessels in the medium to long term. There are no other 
alternatives that would generate higher economic benefits for the 
participants of the scallop fishery.
    The action to re-evaluate the AM determination mid-year, thus 
allowing for more flexibility in determining the appropriate AM 
seasonal closure length, would be positive for LA scallop vessels 
compared to No Action. Although adjusting the FY to which the AMs would 
apply could result in higher benefits to the scallop fishery by making 
this need for flexibility necessary (e.g., if YTF AMs were triggered 
the year after the overage occurred), these measures were not 
considered by the Council and can be re-examined in a future framework 
action. Thus, given the two alternatives considered by the Council, the 
proposed action would generate the higher economic benefits for the 
participants of the scallop fishery.
3. Modifications to the NGOM Management Program
    The proposed action would allow all vessels with a Federal NGOM 
permit to fish exclusively in state waters, on a trip-by-trip basis, 
without the scallop catch from exclusive state water trips counted 
against the Federal NGOM TAC. This change is not expected to have any 
significant impacts under the current resource conditions on landings 
and revenues from this area. However, if the scallop resource abundance 
and landings within the State of Maine's waters increase in the future, 
the proposed action would prevent a reduction in landings from 
federally permitted NGOM vessels fishing in the NGOM. This action could 
potentially have positive economic impacts on the vessels that fish 
both in the state and Federal waters. In addition, this action will 
keep the Federal NGOM hard-TAC at 70,000 lb (31.74 mt), which would 
have a positive economic impact on the participants of the NGOM scallop 
fishery. The only other TAC alternative would have lowered the Federal 
TAC to 31,000 lb (14.06 mt) to prevent excess fishing in the NGOM above 
potentially sustainable levels. Although the proposed TAC alternative, 
if continued over the long-term, could result in reduced landings and 
revenues for the NGOM fishery if effort in Federal waters increases 
substantially, given the present lack of effort in the Federal portion 
of the NGOM, it is unlikely that keeping the TAC at the proposed level 
would cause near-term problems. In addition, the Council will re-
evaluate the NGOM TAC in the next framework adjustment that will set 
the specifications for FYs 2013 and 2014. Thus, there are no 
alternatives that would generate higher economic benefits for the 
participants of the scallop fishery.
4. Change to When a Scallop Trip Can Be Declared Through VMS
    The proposed action would allow a vessel to declare into the 
scallop fishery west of the VMS Demarcation Line rather than from a 
designated port, enabling the vessel to reduce steaming time to scallop 
fishing grounds and decease its fuel and oil costs. Therefore, the 
proposed modification would have positive economic impacts on scallop 
vessels and small business entities. The only other alternative 
considered by the

[[Page 60]]

Council was No Action and, as such, there are no alternatives that 
would generate higher economic benefits for the participants of the 
scallop fishery.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648

    Fisheries, Fishing, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

    Dated: December 20, 2011.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is 
proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 648--FISHERIES OF THE NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES

    1. The authority citation for part 648 continues to read as 
follows:

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

    2. In Sec.  648.10, paragraphs (e)(5)(i), (e)(5)(ii), (f) 
introductory text, (f)(1), (f)(2), (f)(3), (f)(4)(ii), (f)(5)(i)(A), 
(g)(1), (h)(1) introductory text, and (h)(8) are revised, and 
(g)(3)(iii) is added to read as follows:


Sec.  648.10  VMS and DAS requirements for vessel owner/operators.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (5) * * *
    (i) A vessel subject to the VMS requirements of Sec.  648.9 and 
paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section that has crossed the VMS 
Demarcation Line under paragraph (a) of this section is deemed to be 
fishing under the DAS program, the Access Area Program, the LAGC IFQ or 
NGOM scallop fishery, or other fishery requiring the operation of VMS 
as applicable, unless prior to leaving port, the vessel's owner or 
authorized representative declares the vessel out of the scallop, NE 
multispecies, or monkfish fishery, as applicable, for a specific time 
period. NMFS must be notified by transmitting the appropriate VMS code 
through the VMS, or unless the vessel's owner or authorized 
representative declares the vessel will be fishing in the Eastern U.S./
Canada Area, as described in Sec.  648.85(a)(3)(ii), under the 
provisions of that program.
    (ii) Notification that the vessel is not under the DAS program, the 
Access Area Program, the LAGC IFQ or NGOM scallop fishery, or any other 
fishery requiring the operation of VMS, must be received by NMFS prior 
to the vessel leaving port. A vessel may not change its status after 
the vessel leaves port or before it returns to port on any fishing 
trip, unless the vessel is a scallop vessel and is exempted, as 
specified in paragraph (f) of this section.
* * * * *
    (f) Atlantic sea scallop vessel VMS notification requirements. Less 
than 1 hr prior to leaving port, the owner or authorized representative 
of a scallop vessel that is required to use VMS as specified in 
paragraph (b)(1) of this section must notify the Regional Administrator 
by transmitting the appropriate VMS code that the vessel will be 
participating in the scallop DAS program, Area Access Program, LAGC 
scallop fishery, or will be fishing outside of the scallop fishery 
under the requirements of its other Federal permits, or that the vessel 
will be steaming to another location prior to commencing its fishing 
trip by transmitting a ``declared out of fishery'' VMS code. If the 
owner or authorized representative of a scallop vessel declares out of 
the fishery for the steaming portion of the trip, the vessel cannot 
possess, retain, or land scallops, or fish for any other fish. Prior to 
commencing the fishing trip following a ``declared out of fishery'' 
trip, the owner or authorized representative must notify the Regional 
Administrator by transmitting the appropriate VMS code, before first 
crossing the VMS Demarcation Line, that the vessel will be 
participating in the scallop DAS program, Area Access Program, or LAGC 
scallop fishery. VMS codes and instructions are available from the 
Regional Administrator upon request.
    (1) IFQ scallop vessels. An IFQ scallop vessel that has crossed the 
VMS Demarcation Line specified under paragraph (a) of this section is 
deemed to be fishing under the IFQ program, unless prior to the vessel 
leaving port, the vessel's owner or authorized representative declares 
the vessel out of the scallop fishery (i.e., agrees that the vessel 
will not possess, retain, or land scallops while declared out of the 
fishery) by notifying the Regional Administrator through the VMS. If 
the vessel has not fished for any other fish (i.e., steaming only), 
after declaring out of the fishery, leaving port, and steaming to 
another location, the owner or authorized representative of an IFQ 
scallop vessel may declare into the IFQ fishery without entering 
another port by making a declaration before first crossing the VMS 
Demarcation Line. An IFQ scallop vessel that is fishing north of 
42[deg]20' N. lat. is deemed to be fishing under the NGOM scallop 
fishery unless prior to the vessel leaving port, the vessel's owner or 
authorized representative declares the vessel out of the scallop 
fishery, as specified in paragraphs (e)(5)(i) and (ii) of this section, 
and the vessel does not possess, retain, or land scallops while under 
such a declaration. After declaring out of the fishery, leaving port, 
and steaming to another location, if the IFQ scallop vessel has not 
fished for any other fish (i.e., steaming only), the vessel may declare 
into the NGOM fishery without entering another port by making a 
declaration before first crossing the VMS Demarcation Line.
    (2) NGOM scallop fishery. A NGOM scallop vessel is deemed to be 
fishing in Federal waters of the NGOM management area and will have its 
landings applied against the NGOM management area TAC, specified in 
Sec.  648.62(b)(1), unless:
    (i) Prior to the vessel leaving port, the vessel's owner or 
authorized representative declares the vessel out of the scallop 
fishery, as specified in paragraphs (e)(5)(i) and (ii) of this section, 
and the vessel does not possess, retain, or land scallops while under 
such a declaration. After declaring out of the fishery, leaving port, 
and steaming to another location, if the NGOM scallop vessel has not 
fished for any other fish (i.e., steaming only), the vessel may declare 
into the NGOM fishery without entering another port by making a 
declaration before first crossing the VMS Demarcation Line.
    (ii) The vessel has specifically declared into the state-only NGOM 
fishery, thus is fishing exclusively in the state waters portion of the 
NGOM management area.
    (3) Incidental scallop fishery. An Incidental scallop vessel that 
has crossed the VMS Demarcation Line on any declared fishing trip for 
any species is deemed to be fishing under the Incidental scallop 
fishery.
* * * * *
    (4) * * *
    (ii) Scallop Pre-Landing Notification Form for IFQ and NGOM 
vessels. Using the Scallop Pre-Landing Notification Form, a vessel 
issued an IFQ or NGOM scallop permit must report through VMS the amount 
of any scallops kept on each trip declared as a scallop trip, including 
declared scallop trips where no scallops were landed. In addition, 
vessels with an IFQ or NGOM permit must submit a Scallop Pre-Landing 
Notification Form on trips that are not declared as scallop trips, but 
on which scallops are kept incidentally. A limited access vessel that 
also holds an IFQ or NGOM permit must submit the Scallop Pre-Landing 
Notification Form only when fishing under the provisions of the 
vessel's IFQ or NGOM permit. VMS Scallop Pre-Landing Notification forms 
must be

[[Page 61]]

submitted no less than 6 hr prior to crossing the VMS Demarcation Line 
on the way back to port, and, if scallops will be landed, must include 
the vessel's captain/operator name, the amount of scallop meats and/or 
bushels to be landed, the estimated time of arrival in port, the port 
at which the scallops will be landed, the VTR serial number recorded 
from that trip's VTR, and whether any scallops were caught in the NGOM. 
If the scallop harvest ends less than 6 hr prior to landing, then the 
Scallop Pre-Landing Notification form must be submitted immediately 
upon leaving the fishing grounds. If no scallops will be landed, the 
form only requires the vessel's captain/operator name, the VTR serial 
number recorded from that trip's VTR, and indication that no scallops 
will be landed. If the report is being submitted as a correction of a 
prior report, the information entered into the notification form will 
replace the data previously submitted in the prior report.
    (5) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (A) Notify the Regional Administrator, via their VMS, prior to each 
trip of the vessel under the state waters exemption program, that the 
vessel will be fishing exclusively in state waters; and
* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (1) Unless otherwise specified in this part, or via letters sent to 
affected permit holders under paragraph (e)(1)(iv) of this section, the 
owner or authorized representative of a vessel that is required to use 
VMS, as specified in paragraph (b) of this section, unless exempted 
under paragraph (f) of this section, must notify the Regional 
Administrator of the vessel's intended fishing activity by entering the 
appropriate VMS code prior to leaving port at the start of each fishing 
trip.
* * * * *
    (3) * * *
    (iii) The vessel carries onboard a valid limited access or LAGC 
scallop permit, has declared out of the fishery in port, and is 
steaming to another location, pursuant to paragraph (f) of this 
section.
* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (1) Less than 1 hr prior to leaving port, for vessels issued a 
limited access NE multispecies DAS permit or, for vessels issued a 
limited access NE multispecies DAS permit and a limited access monkfish 
permit (Category C, D, F, G, or H), unless otherwise specified in 
paragraph (h) of this section, or an occasional scallop permit as 
specified in this paragraph (h), and, prior to leaving port for vessels 
issued a limited access monkfish Category A or B permit, the vessel 
owner or authorized representative must notify the Regional 
Administrator that the vessel will be participating in the DAS program 
by calling the call-in system and providing the following information:
* * * * *
    (8) Regardless of whether a vessel's owner or authorized 
representative provides correct notification as required by paragraphs 
(e) through (h) of this section, a vessel meeting any of the following 
descriptions shall be deemed to be in its respective fishery's DAS or 
Scallop Access Area Program for purpose of counting DAS or scallop 
access area trips/pounds, and, shall be charged DAS from the time of 
sailing to landing:
    (i) Any vessel issued a limited access scallop permit and not 
issued an LAGC scallop permit that possesses or lands scallops;
    (ii) A vessel issued a limited access scallop and LAGC IFQ scallop 
permit that possesses or lands more than 600 lb (272.2 kg) of scallops, 
unless otherwise specified in Sec.  648.60(d)(2);
    (iii) Any vessel issued a limited access scallop and LAGC NGOM 
scallop permit that possesses or lands more than 200 lb (90.7 kg) of 
scallops;
    (iv) Any vessel issued a limited access scallop and LAGC IC scallop 
permit that possesses or lands more than 40 lb (18.1 kg) of scallops;
    (v) Any vessel issued a limited access NE multispecies permit 
subject to the NE multispecies DAS program requirements that possesses 
or lands regulated NE multispecies, except as provided in Sec. Sec.  
648.10(h)(9)(ii), 648.17, and 648.89; and
    (vi) Any vessel issued a limited access monkfish permit subject to 
the monkfish DAS program and call-in requirement that possess or lands 
monkfish above the incidental catch trip limits specified in Sec.  
648.94(c).
* * * * *
    3. In Sec.  648.11, paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(5)(i)(A) are revised 
to read as follows:


Sec.  648.11  At-sea sea sampler/observer coverage.

* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (1) General. Unless otherwise specified, owners, operators, and/or 
managers of vessels issued a Federal scallop permit under Sec.  
648.4(a)(2), and specified in paragraph (a) of this section, must 
comply with this section and are jointly and severally responsible for 
their vessel's compliance with this section. To facilitate the 
deployment of a