[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 193 (Wednesday, October 5, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 61661-61663]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-25746]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 648
[Docket No. 110907562-1598-01]
RIN 0648-BB40
Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Changes to Vessel
Replacement and Upgrade Provisions for Fishing Vessels Issued Limited
Access Federal Fishery Permits
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS, in consultation with the Atlantic States Marine
Fisheries Commission (Commission) and the New England and Mid-Atlantic
Fishery Management Councils (Councils), is considering changes to the
current system of regulations that limit the potential size of a
replacement vessel. This advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR)
provides background information and requests public comment on the
administrative and financial burdens of the current system, as well as
on what type of changes would be appropriate to reduce that burden and
the regulatory complexity without adversely affecting the fishery. NMFS
will consider all recommendations received in response to this ANPR
prior to any proposed rulemaking.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 5, 2011.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on this document, identified by
NOAA-NMFS-2011-0213, by any of the following methods:
Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public
comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal http://www.regulations.gov. To submit comments via the e-Rulemaking Portal,
first click the ``submit a comment'' icon, and then enter NOAA-NMFS-
2011-0213 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 and hand delivery: 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 Vessel Upgrade ANPR.''
Fax: (978) 281-9135.
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 http://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
[[Page 61662]]
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: Douglas Potts, Fishery Policy Analyst,
(978) 281-9341, fax (978) 281-9135.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Measures to limit the potential size of a replacement vessel were
first implemented in the Northeast Region in 1994 in conjunction with
the adoption of limited access permits in the Northeast Multispecies
and Atlantic Scallop Fishery Management Plans (FMP). NMFS enacted these
measures to promote conservation of the fish species by limiting the
potential increase in fishing capacity of the fleet and thereby
maintaining total fishing mortality within the requirements of the
respective rebuilding schedule of the FMP. In the following years, NMFS
adopted limited access permits for other fisheries in the Northeast,
some of which included various restrictions on how a permitted vessel
could be replaced. In 1999, an omnibus amendment (Consistency
Amendment) to all the FMPs of the Councils was implemented (64 FR 8263,
February 19, 1999) to expand and standardize the upgrade restrictions
to encompass most of the limited access fisheries in the Northeast.
The current regulations restrict the size and horsepower of any
replacement vessel, or modifications to the current vessel, based on
the specifications of a baseline vessel. The baseline vessel for each
limited access permit is typically the first vessel issued the limited
access permit in that fishery at the time that permit was issued. In
the case of fisheries that adopted baseline restrictions through the
Consistency Amendment, the permitted vessel as of the date of the final
rule's implementation sets the baseline. In some cases, this
methodology resulted in a single vessel with permits for multiple
fisheries having more than one baseline. In that situation, the most
restrictive combination of baseline specifications applies, unless the
vessel owner chooses to relinquish permanently the permit with the more
restrictive baseline(s).
Current regulations allow vessel owners to increase (or upgrade) a
specification either by moving the limited access permit to a new
vessel or by modifying the current vessel, up to 10 percent above of
the baseline vessel's length overall, gross registered tonnage, and net
tonnage and up to 20 percent above the baseline vessel's horsepower. As
a matter of NMFS policy, all calculated maximum upgrade values are
rounded up to the next whole number. The baseline size and horsepower
specifications associated with a permit can only be upgraded once,
although the vessel size characteristics (length overall, gross
registered tonnage, and net tonnage) and engine horsepower can be
upgraded at different times. For example, a vessel owner looking to
replace his current vessel, which has a baseline engine horsepower of
300, may, if the horsepower on that permit was not upgraded before,
move it to a vessel with up to 360 horsepower (20 percent greater than
the 300-horsepower baseline). If the owner opts for a new vessel with a
340-horsepower engine, that action counts as the one-time upgrade, and
any future replacement vessel could not exceed that new 340-horsepower
maximum limit. The baseline size characteristics can be upgraded
through this same vessel replacement or used another time. However,
since size characteristics are upgraded as a group, if the baseline
length overall is upgraded but not the gross and net tonnages, the
baseline tonnage specifications cannot be upgraded in the future.
When a vessel owner wants to move a limited access Federal fishery
permit to a replacement vessel, as part of the application he must
provide documentation from a third party to demonstrate that the
length, gross registered tonnage, net tonnage, and horsepower are
within the limits for that permit. Many vessels use the U.S. Coast
Guard vessel documentation certificate for length and tonnages,
although the documentation certificate should then reflect the length
overall as required by NMFS regulation, rather than the typical
registered length. Vessels that are not documented by the U.S. Coast
Guard must provide other documentation for vessel size. Obtaining
vessel specification documents may involve the time and expense of
having the new vessel measured by a marine surveyor or other qualified
individual. Engine horsepower documentation may require testing by a
marine mechanic and documentation of the results on formal letterhead.
On the other hand, all of this information might be routinely obtained
for other purposes (e.g., for insurance coverage) and it could be a
minimal additional cost to provide copies as part of a permit transfer
application. The cost of documenting vessel specifications has been
previously estimated at $375 for calculating the burden to the public
under the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act. The full cost to
the industry of this process is not clear, and the public is encouraged
to submit comments on how much of a financial and time burden this
process has been.
Some members of the fishing industry have reported that it can be
difficult to find a suitable replacement vessel within allowed
upgrades, especially for small boats. For example, a replacement for a
25-ft (7.6-m) baseline vessel could not exceed 28 ft (8.5 m), and
manufacturers may not make vessels in the allowed size range that also
meet other specific needs of a vessel owner. Similarly, modern marine
engines are manufactured to meet more stringent emissions standards,
and horsepower ratings may not be as adjustable as in the past without
violating those limits. The safety of a vessel at sea, especially in
adverse weather conditions, is affected by many factors, including the
size of the vessel. NMFS encourages comments from the public on the
availability of suitable replacement vessels, and the impact this has
on safety at sea.
The primary justification for the adoption of upgrade restrictions
was to control the potential increase in catch from each permitted
vessel that could occur with increases in vessel size and horsepower
and, therefore, to prevent unexpected increases in fishing mortality
that could hinder a rebuilding program. Since the initial
implementation of vessel upgrade and replacement restrictions, many
fisheries have also adopted trip limits or other measures that control
the potential harvest of a vessel beyond just restricting vessel size.
In addition, the recent adoption in all fisheries of annual catch
limits that cap total harvest in a given year may reduce the concern
over excessive fishing mortality. In light of these other measures, it
is possible that vessel baseline restrictions could be relaxed without
adversely affecting stock rebuilding. However, the upgrade restriction
is considered one factor that is helping to preserve the small vessel
character of the fishing fleet in the Northeast region. Larger and more
powerful vessels could also have increased impacts on habitat or
bycatch of non-target species. Further, fishery management actions
adopted by the coastal states through the Commission may rely on the
baseline upgrade restrictions for federally permitted vessels to
control harvest potential. These considerations will have to be more
fully understood before a change
[[Page 61663]]
to current regulation can be implemented.
A wide range of options could be considered as part of any action
to change vessel baseline regulations. NMFS would like public input on
the full range of potential actions, including suggestions for other
changes to baseline regulations that are not specifically listed in
this announcement, such as how to treat vessels that have multiple
baselines and/or have already upgraded under the current system.
Potential changes may include one or more of the following.
1. Eliminate tonnages from vessel baseline regulations. The
tonnages are often considered the most malleable of baseline
specifications. The gross registered tonnage can vary significantly
depending on whether exact measurements or the simplified calculation
method is used. Similarly, net tonnage can be calculated based either
on the gross tonnage or from measurements of the vessel, and may be
changed by modifying internal bulkheads. Tonnage has also been a
concern for owners of vessels built outside of the United States that
are determined to be under 5 net tons (14.16 m\3\) for import purposes.
2. Eliminate the one-time upgrade provision. This would eliminate
the incentive to use as much of the available upgrade as possible to
avoid ``losing'' some amount of future upgrade. The change could also
simplify upgrade considerations by establishing the maximum
specifications of any future vessel without needing to know whether any
specification has already been upgraded. For example, under this
option, if the permit on your vessel has a baseline horsepower
specification of 300, and at some point moved to a vessel with 340
horsepower, a future replacement vessel could still be up to 360
horsepower (20 percent greater than the 300-horsepower baseline).
3. Change from a system of fixed upgrades to a system of size
classes. This option would allow a vessel owner to move a permit to any
vessel that fits within the specified size class. The specifics of this
type of change, including the number and size of the size classes, have
not been fully developed, and NMFS seeks comment to this end. Specific
size classes could be based on vessel length, horsepower, or a
combination. Such a system would simplify the vessel replacement
considerations by making them uniform for all vessels in a particular
size class rather than the current system where potential upgrades are
unique to each permit. However, determining specific size classes that
are appropriate for all fisheries may be difficult, and such a system
might disadvantage vessels that are already at the upper limit of a
size class.
4. Remove baseline upgrade restrictions for vessels under 30 ft
(9.1 m). The Councils discussed this potential measure in 1998 during
the development of the Consistency Amendment, and again in 2003, but
took no formal action at either time. This approach would remove the
burden on the smallest vessels as long as they stay under 30 ft (9.1
m), but would establish upgrade provisions that are not uniform for all
vessels, which might be confusing or seen as unfair.
5. Complete removal of upgrade restrictions. This would allow any
vessel owner to move his/her permit to any other vessel. It would
provides maximum flexibility to the industry, but would remove the
baseline system's restrictions on fleet structure and would likely have
the largest impacts on the fishery and the environment.
The long comment period for this ANPR is intended to overlap with
meetings of both Councils. While this topic may be discussed at the
Council meetings, please submit written comments on the burden of the
current vessel baseline system, the potential changes outlined here, or
any suggestions for other changes that might be appropriate through one
of the methods identified in the ADDRESSES section of this ANPR, to
ensure that they are fully considered.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
Dated: September 30, 2011.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-25746 Filed 10-4-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P