November 2011 MAINE COASTAL NEWS Page 13. Commercial Fishing News MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL FISHING NEWS
Many vessels use the U.S. Coast Guard ves- sel documentation certificate for length and tonnages, although the documentation cer- tificate 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 docu- ments may involve the time and expense of having the new vessel measured by a marine surveyor or other qualified individual. En- gine horsepower documentation may require testing by a marine mechanic and documen- tation 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 calcu- lating 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 encour- aged 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 ex- ample, 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 adjust- able 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. The primary justification for the adop- tion of upgrade restrictions was to control the potential increase in catch from each permit- ted vessel that could occur with increases in vessel size and horsepower and, therefore, to prevent unexpected increases in fishing mor- tality 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. How- ever, 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 up- grade restrictions for federally permitted ves- sels to control harvest potential. These con- siderations will have to be more fully under- stood before a change to current regulation can be implemented.
A wide range of options could be con- sidered as part of any action to change vessel baseline regulations. NMFS would like pub- lic 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 cur- rent 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 calcula- tion 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 provi- sion. 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 sim- plify 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 speci- fication of 300, and at some point moved to a vessel with 340 horsepower, a future replace- ment vessel could still be up to 360 horse- power (20 percent greater than the 300-horse- power baseline).
3. Change from a system of fixed up- grades to a system of size classes. This op- tion would allow a vessel owner to move a permit to any vessel that fits within the speci- fied 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. Spe- cific size classes could be based on vessel length, horsepower, or a combination. Such a system would simplify the vessel replace- ment considerations by making them uniform for all vessels in a particular size class rather than the current system where potential up- grades are unique to each permit. However, determining specific size classes that are ap- propriate 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 restric- tions. 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 writ- ten 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 en- sure that they are fully considered.
120
"We encourage your support and membership!"
Working together, we can speak as one to maintain our fisheries, working families and working waterfronts.
PO Box 88 Belfast, ME 04915
207-338-1406 207-322-1924 207-322-1928
www.downeastlobstermen.org
D.E.L.A. is a qualified exempt organization under Section 501 (c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32