[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