Many fish processing vessels also catch fish. Therefore, their owners reasoned that they should be governed by the less restrictive regulations of a fishing vessel. In some cases, they felt they should be entitled to all exemptions of both a processing vessel and the fishing vessel. One regulated area from which they felt exempted was 46 USC 5102, Load Lines (enacted 21 October 1986).
This section makes load line requirements applicable to vessels of the United States except:
(3) a fishing vessel
(4) a fish processing vessel of not more than 5,000 gross tons that-
(5) (I) was constructed for use as a fish processing vessel before august 16, 1974; or
(ii) was converted for use as a fish processing vessel before January 1, 1983; and
(B) is not on a foreign voyage.
….
(7) a vessel of less that 79 feet overall length.
….
A "fish processing vessel" is defined as "a vessel that commercially prepares fish or fish products other that by gutting, decapitating, gilling, skinning, shucking, icing, freezing or brine chilling" (46 USC 2101 (11b)).
ADM YOST, Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard, in a letter addressed to Representative John Miller who had met with the Coast Guard in April, 1989 to express concern regarding the application of the load line statute to the uninspected fish processing vessel ALEUTIAN ENTERPRISE, which had sunk in the Bering Sea March 22, 1990, stated:
The legislative history surrounding the enactment of the 1984 Act shows that Congress appreciated the impact the new laws would have on the fishing industry vessels. The memorandum [which you] submitted for our review at the April 17, 1989, meeting states that industry lobbyists requested that the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee staff include hybrid vessels in the statutory definition of fishing vessels. This was done in an attempt to secure exemptions from inspection and manning statutes. The Committee staff rejected this request, retaining the present definitional structure with the knowledge that it would require hybrid vessels to comply with those statutes….Congress clearly meant to classify as processors those vessels whose primary purpose is processing. The history of this case reveals the owner of the U.S. ENTERPRISE (sic) has features contained in both definitions, it has a right to all of the exemptions granted to either class of vessel. The law defines a fish processing vessel as any vessel which commercially prepares fish in any manner other than those used by fishing vessels to preserve their catch. This definition does not deny that the fact that traditional fishing activity can take place on board processing vessels. It merely establishes a statutory vessel prepares fish in any manner other than those specifically enumerated in the law, it becomes statutorily classified solely as a fish processing vessel, regardless of its hybrid nature.
The purpose of the load line lows is to ensure the safe loading of vessels in terms of adequate strength, stability and reserve freeboard for the protection of the crews and property. This encompasses examination of the vessel’s structure for the carriage of the intended cargoes, evaluation of the vessel’s structure for the carriage of the intended cargoes, evaluation of the vessel’s stability while in its minimum and maximum loaded conditions, and requiring adequate closures to maintain watertight integrity of the vessel at sea.
The Coast Guard Marine Safety office in Seattle, WA states that when the ALEUTIAN ENTERPRISE sank, only 15 processing vessels had load lines. A survey of vessel activities indicated that at least 95 were required by law to have a load line. Today, January 1992, 45 have load lines and 50 vessels are in the process of obtaining load lines.
There are still processing vessels which claim the exemption because they have stated to the Coast Guard that their handling of fish entails no more than gutting, decapitating, gilling, skinning, icing freezing or brine chilling and other minimal handling. It has been learned that the other minimal handling in fact means fileting and placing the fish in the final box for marketing. Had this been defined to the Coast Guard, they clearly would not have advised the vessel owners that they were processing vessels.
A companion article, page one, on the effect of violations indicates the significant impact non-compliance may have.
Home ! Search Page ! Master index ! Table of Contents for This Issue