Background There are three main types of U.S. commercial fishing vessels: catcher vessels that catch fish and deliver them to shore for  processing;  tender vessels that purchase and transport fish from catcher vessels  and resupply fishers with food, fuel, and other necessities; and  fish processing vessels that both catch and process fish at sea. Commercial fishing vessels are also characterized by the type of fishing  gear used, such as trawl nets, seine nets, gill nets, traps and pots,  dredges, and hook and line. The targeted fish species determines the  type of vessel and gear that fishers use in their operations. A commercial  fishing vessel may participate in multiple fisheries, using various fishing  gear, as needed. The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as  amended, provides for the conservation and management of fishery  resources within the federal waters of the United States. The act defines  “commercial fishing” to mean fishing in which the fish harvested, either in  whole or in part, are intended to enter commerce or enter commerce  through sale, barter, or trade. This act also created eight regional fishery  management councils, which are responsible for preparing fishery  management plans and setting annual catch limits for the fisheries within  their areas of authority. NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service, under  authority delegated from the Secretary of Commerce, provides support for  regional fishery management councils and approves and implements  fishery management plans and plan amendments. Figure 1 illustrates the  eight fishery management councils. U.S. Commercial Fishing  Vessel Classification and  Safety Requirements Under federal statute, commercial fishing vessels are categorized as  uninspected vessels and the Coast Guard generally does not have the  authority to inspect the vessels during construction or regular  maintenance. However, the Coast Guard is authorized to inspect all other  commercial vessels such as freight, offshore supply, passenger, tank,  and towing vessels. Through the inspection process, the Coast Guard  ensures that a vessel’s structure is suitable, that equipment and  accommodations are maintained in an operating condition consistent with  safety of life and property conventions, and that the vessel complies with  applicable marine safety laws and regulations. Safety issues aboard commercial fishing vessels have been a long- standing concern. Various studies identified the problems and considered  possible solutions to improve commercial fishing safety, but implementing  improved safety recommendations were largely left to the vessel owner’s  discretion. Following the loss of entire commercial fishing vessel crews  during the mid-1980s, Congress passed the Commercial Fishing Industry  Vessel Safety Act of 1988, which required safety improvements and  examination of commercial fishing vessels for safety equipment. The act also instructed the Secretary of Transportation to conduct a study  of the safety problems on fishing industry vessels and make  recommendations on whether a vessel inspection program should be  implemented. In 1991, the National Research Council conducted this  study, which included a comprehensive assessment of commercial fishing  vessel safety and identified a range of issues, including vessel fitness,  and safety and survival equipment, among other things. The Council  found that developing casualty rates was hampered by the absence of  reliable data on the number of fishing vessels, vessel material condition,  exposure variables, and other factors. The Council recommended a  holistic approach to fishing vessel safety, including establishing vessel  and equipment standards as well as the development of a database to  evaluate alternatives and monitor results. The Council stressed, however,  the importance of balancing the anticipated benefits of a safety program  with any costs that might be imposed through implementation. The  Council also noted that classification costs would be borne principally by  vessel owners and that the costs could be significant for individual vessel  owners. Congress established classification requirements to address the  construction and maintenance of fish processing vessels in 1988, and  applied classification requirements to all types of commercial fishing  vessels more broadly in 2010 and 2012 under the Coast Guard  Authorization Act of 2010 and the Coast Guard and Maritime  Transportation Act of 2012. In addition to classification requirements,  Congress also established other requirements to improve vessel safety.  For example, commercial fishing vessels that are 79 feet or longer, built  after July 1, 2013, are required to have an assigned load line. A load  line indicates the point where the waterline should reach when a vessel is  properly loaded. Assignment of a load line, and issuance of a load line  certificate, is conditional on the structural efficiency and satisfactory  stability of the vessel, and on provisions provided for protection of the  vessel and crew. As part of a load line certification, a vessel’s  seaworthiness is assessed by evaluating a vessel’s watertight integrity,  stability, and loading capacity. A vessel’s stability booklet, prepared as  part of a stability assessment, instructs operators on how to distribute  weight across a vessel to prevent capsizing under different operating  conditions. Figure 2 illustrates legislation and policy that addresses  commercial fishing vessel construction and maintenance from 1988 to  2016. Classification requirements differ by commercial fishing vessel type and  length and are only applicable to vessels built after certain dates, as seen  in table 1. To address safety on older commercial fishing vessels, the 2010 and  2012 acts also directed the Secretary of Homeland Security to develop an  alternate safety compliance program for commercial fishing vessels that  are at least 50 feet in length, built before July 1, 2013, and are 25 years  or older. The Coast Guard drafted requirements for the program but,  according to the Coast Guard, this program would have required a new  rulemaking effort, and it suspended the effort in July 2016. At that time,  the Coast Guard developed an Enhanced Oversight Program—through  policy and its existing authorities—that focuses on older, non-classed  commercial fishing vessels that may pose a greater risk of vessel and  crew member loss. In addition, in January 2017, the Coast Guard issued  a list of voluntary safety initiatives and good marine practices and  encouraged vessel owners to implement these initiatives on all non- classed vessels where possible and reasonable. The Coast Guard is also  currently working on aligning its existing regulations on commercial  fishing vessels with the classification requirements introduced in the 2010  and 2012 acts. Vessel Classification  Process and Procedures Through the classing process, classification societies, such as the  American Bureau of Shipping (ABS), Det Norske Veritas Germanischer  Lloyd (DNV GL), and RINA, address aspects of the vessel’s design,  structural integrity, reliability and function of major systems, and accident  prevention. Classification societies (1) establish and maintain standards  for the construction and classification of vessels and offshore structures;  (2) supervise construction in accordance with these standards; and (3)  carry out regular surveys of vessels in service to ensure the compliance  with these standards. Once a vessel is “classed” with a certificate  indicating that it meets a minimum level of safety and quality, the vessel is  subject to periodic inspection to verify that it continues to meet the  applicable rules of the issuing classification society, or risks losing its  classification certificate, which could prevent the vessel from operating  legally. Figure 3 illustrates the classification process for vessel design,  construction, and maintenance. Of the 39 U.S. fishing vessels classed by three societies, as shown in  table 2, at least 29 are fish processing vessels. Although commercial fish processing vessels built or converted after July  27, 1990, are required by U.S. law to be classed, the law permits a vessel  to be exempted from this and other statutory requirements under certain  conditions. Few commercial fish processing vessels have an active class  certificate. Older U.S. fish processing vessels—most of which operate off  of the coast of Alaska—generally fall under the Coast Guard’s Alternative  Compliance and Safety Agreement Program, which is implemented  pursuant to exemption authority provided under law. Under this program,  vessel owners apply with the Coast Guard for an exemption from classing  and load line requirements so long as the vessel meets improved safety  standards provided for under the program. Federal Agencies Involved  in Commercial Fishing  Vessel Safety Several different federal agencies play a role in overseeing and promoting  commercial fishing vessel safety: Coast Guard: The only military service within the Department of  Homeland Security (DHS), search and rescue activities and marine  safety activities number among the Coast Guard’s primary missions.  As part of the safety activities, the Coast Guard performs mandatory  safety inspections, conducts accident investigations, and promotes  accident prevention involving vessels at sea. In 2015, the Coast  Guard also began performing mandatory examinations of safety  equipment onboard commercial fishing vessels. The Coast Guard  records all interactions with vessels, including commercial fishing  vessel accidents, in the Marine Information for Safety and Law  Enforcement database. Coast Guard regulations require vessel  operators to report a marine casualty involving damage to the vessel  or other property; injury or loss of life; or harm to the environment.  The Coast Guard is also responsible for enforcing fishery  management laws and regulations. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH): As  part of the Department of Health and Human Services’ Centers for  Disease Control and Prevention, NIOSH is responsible for conducting  research and making recommendations for new or improved work- related safety and health standards. For example, it has  recommended that all fishing vessel operators conduct monthly safety  drills as required by federal regulation; heed weather forecasts and  avoid fishing in severe sea conditions; and maintain watertight  integrity by examining and monitoring the hulls of their vessels.  NIOSH maintains a Commercial Fishing Incident Database, which  mostly is comprised of data on fishing industry fatalities abstracted  and coded from reports of Coast Guard investigations of marine  casualties. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB): NTSB investigates  commercial fishing vessel accidents that involve the most significant  damage and loss of life. NTSB conducts investigations (sometimes  in parallel with the Coast Guard) to determine the probable cause of  vessel accidents and issues safety recommendations aimed at  preventing future accidents. For example, with regard to commercial  fishing vessels NTSB recommends regularly conducting safety drills  as well as proper training in stability and firefighting, and wearing a  flotation aid at all times while working on deck. National Marine Fisheries Service: National Marine Fisheries  Service uses fishery observers and at-sea monitors to collect data  from U.S. commercial fishing vessels to monitor federal fisheries,  assess fish populations, set fishing quotas, and inform fishery  management practices. Under federal regulations, fishing vessels that  may carry a fishery observer as part of a required or voluntary  observer program generally must pass a Coast Guard commercial  fishing vessel safety examination and be issued a safety decal.  Further, under federal regulations, fishery conservation and  management measures must, to the extent practicable, promote the  safety of human life at sea, and should minimize or mitigate safety  impacts where practicable. Number of  Commercial Fishing  Vessel Accidents,  Injuries, and Fatalities  Varied from 2006- 2015, but Rates  Cannot Be  Determined The Coast Guard investigated 2,101 commercial fishing vessel accidents  between 2006 and 2015 that were identified as occurring in federal  waters. While the number of accidents in 2015 was greater than the  number reported in 2006, the number of injuries and fatalities declined  over the same 10-year period. We could not assess the number of  accidents, injuries, and fatalities by fishery due to limitations with the  Coast Guard’s data. In addition, we were unable to calculate the rates of  commercial fishing vessel accidents, injuries, and fatalities because  reliable data on certain information needed to do so—including the total  number of vessels that are actively fishing and the fishery or region in  which the vessel operates—are either not maintained or are not collected  by the Coast Guard or other federal agencies. Number of Commercial  Fishing Vessel Accidents  in Federal Waters Varied  from 2006-2015 and  Instances of Injuries and  Fatalities Have Declined Between 2006 and 2015, the Coast Guard investigated 2,101 commercial  fishing vessel accidents that occurred in federal waters. Coast Guard data  indicates that the numbers of accidents generally increased through 2013  before falling slightly over the next two years, but remains above the level  experienced in 2006. Of those, the Coast Guard investigated 193 serious  marine incidents—those resulting in death, injury, or significant property  damage, or involving environmental damage in federal waters. Figure 4  shows the number of commercial fishing vessel accidents and serious  marine incidents that occurred in federal waters for 2006 through 2015. From 2006 through 2015, 598 of 2,101 commercial fishing vessel  accidents in federal waters resulted in an injury and/or fatality. These  accidents resulted in a total of 507 injuries and 182 fatalities over this  period. Coast Guard data indicate that the number of injuries and  fatalities have been declining since 2012, and 2015 figures are  substantially below the levels reported in 2006, as seen in figure 5. Due to limitations with the Coast Guard’s data, we were unable to portray  numbers of accidents, injuries, or fatalities by fishery located in a specific  geographic location. Although we identified the area in which each  commercial fishing vessel accident occurred, using latitudinal and  longitudinal information included in the Coast Guard’s database, we could  not reliably assign each accident, injury, or fatality to a fishery managed  by interstate marine fisheries commissions or fishery management  councils—entities which manage fishery resources in state and federal  waters, respectively. National Marine Fisheries Service officials stated  that even though an accident that occurred in an area of federal waters  that falls within a jurisdiction of a particular council, the vessel may not  have been participating in a fishery managed, either solely or in part, by  that council. Data on a vessel’s intended fishery on the day of the  accident provides accurate information on the intended area in which a  vessel should be operating. Assigning a commercial fishing vessel  accident to a specific fishery management council on a solely geographic  basis—without consideration of the vessel’s targeted fishery—could  overestimate the prevalence of accidents in a council jurisdiction. While  the Coast Guard’s database includes a field for a vessel’s fishery, these  data were not collected for the majority of commercial fishing vessel  accidents between 2006 and 2015. An official in the Coast Guard’s Office  of Investigations and Analysis stated that data on a vessel’s fishery is not  required in order to complete an accident investigation and, therefore,  may not be collected. Federal internal control standards establish that management should  obtain relevant, accurate data from reliable sources in a timely manner,  and recommend that agencies’ management use quality information to  make informed decisions and evaluate the entity’s performance in  achieving key objectives and addressing risks. The lack of complete and  reliable data on the vessel’s fishery in the Coast Guard’s database  hinders efforts to assess whether particular fisheries experience higher  numbers of accidents, injuries or fatalities than others. Such information  would benefit the Coast Guard’s analysis of commercial fishing vessel  accidents, injuries, and fatalities because information on a vessel’s fishery  can be used for a regional analysis of these events. Relevant Federal  Agencies Do Not Collect  Reliable Information on  the Active Fleet to Enable  Calculation of Rates The Coast Guard and other federal agencies do not collect data on the  total number of vessels that are actively fishing—those that are operating,  landing, and selling catch—and we found that existing data on the  population of commercial fishing vessels are not sufficiently reliable to  calculate rates of commercial fishing vessel accidents, injuries, and  fatalities. Data on the total number of commercial fishing vessels actively  catching and processing fish are necessary to determine rates—the ratio  of the number of accidents, injuries, and fatalities that occurred compared  to the total number of active commercial fishing vessels. These rates, if  based on reliable data, would establish trend information on the number  of accidents involving commercial fishing vessels. While the Coast Guard collects some data on commercial fishing vessels  that operate in federal waters—including a vessel’s length and  construction date—data on the population of the active U.S. commercial  fishing vessel fleet are not reliably known. The Coast Guard’s National  Vessel Documentation Center maintains a registry of valid certificates of  documentation—that indicate that a vessel is registered with the Coast  Guard and is greater than 5 net tons—for commercial fishing vessels that  operate in federal waters. However, even when the Coast Guard could  identify the number of documented vessels, we found the data they  provided were unreliable for determining the total number of commercial  fishing vessels that are actively fishing. For example, a senior Coast  Guard official estimated that more than 20 percent of the vessels  documented in 2015 were not actively fishing and may not be operational  or otherwise not in use. As part of vessel registration, the Coast Guard  collects information on a vessel’s length and date of construction. Other  data, however, such as the fishery located in a specific geographic  location in which a vessel operates, are not collected. Data on key  characteristics of the total number of commercial fishing vessels actively  fishing—including vessel length, age, and fishery or region of operation— would provide additional information when analyzing rates of commercial  fishing vessel accidents, injuries, and fatalities. Other federal agencies involved in the commercial fishing vessel industry  also do not collect data on the total number of active U.S. commercial  fishing vessels. Having a national count of federally-permitted commercial  fishing vessels can be used, in part, to help determine the number of  commercial fishing vessels that are actively fishing. Federal permits are  required for commercial fishing vessels that fish in certain fisheries and,  according to officials from the National Marine Fisheries Service, these  fishing permits are issued by NOAA’s regional offices and each regional  office manages its own data. National Marine Fisheries Service officials  stated that they are developing a national count of federally-permitted  commercial fishing vessels, but a competing priority delayed this effort  and noted it will recommence in the coming year. However, just because  a vessel has a permit, it does not mean it is an active vessel, and  additional data on vessel activity—such as information from log books,  fish tickets, and fishery observers—is needed to identify vessels that are  actively fishing. Similarly, a statistician from NIOSH—the federal agency that maintains  data on commercial fishing fatalities and is responsible for conducting  research and making recommendations for the prevention of work-related  injury and illness—stated that he has encountered challenges estimating  the total size of the active U.S. commercial fishing fleet because the  majority of commercial fishing vessels are state-registered, and  comprehensive data on the number of state-registered vessels are not  available. Coast Guard officials acknowledged that they do not collect  data on a state-registered vessel, unless the Coast Guard has been in  contact with the vessel. Officials from the Coast Guard and the National Marine Fisheries Service  agreed that it is important to calculate rates to assess the number of  commercial fishing vessel accidents, injuries, and fatalities. At present,  however, no particular federal agency has collected or calculated the  national number of active commercial fishing vessels—those that are  fishing and selling their catch—or the region and fishery in which these  vessels operate. Once a reliable count of the number of active  commercial fishing vessels is established, rates can be calculated by  other characteristics such as the fishery or fisheries in which a vessel  operates or vessel length. These rates would provide further insight into  commercial fishing vessel accidents, injuries, and fatalities, including the  percentage of vessels that are involved in an accident in a specific region  or the percentage of accidents that involve vessels of a certain length  such as, for example, vessels greater than 79 feet in length. Federal internal control standards establish that management should  obtain relevant data from reliable sources in a timely manner, and  recommend that agencies’ management use quality information to make  informed decisions. The Coast Guard and the National Marine Fisheries  Service are collecting data that could be used to develop an estimate of  the total number of commercial fishing vessels that are actively fishing,  however, each agency is taking a different approach, in part, because  they are doing so for different purposes. Specifically, the Coast Guard  collects data on commercial fishing vessels and the National Marine  Fisheries Service collects data on permits for federally-managed  fisheries, as well as other data on fishing activities. These data can be  used, in part, to help determine the number of commercial fishing vessels  that are actively fishing. In addition to the Coast Guard and the National  Marine Fisheries Service, an agency, such as NIOSH—that is involved in  commercial fishing vessel safety—could benefit from information derived  from these ongoing efforts. Without such information, Congress and the  agencies will lack important data needed to accurately assess the factors  that contribute to commercial fishing vessel accidents, injuries, and  fatalities. Establishing a mechanism—such as a working group—to  coordinate efforts and collect reliable data on the number of active  vessels and key characteristics, such as vessel age and length, would  allow the agencies to do so in an efficient manner. While Data on the  Costs of Classing Are  Limited, Stakeholders  Believe Classing Will  Increase Ownership  Costs We were able to obtain limited data on the costs of classification because  only a total of six classed vessels have been built and builders and  owners were reluctant to provide data on costs which they consider to be  proprietary. Classification society representatives, vessel owners, and  builders we interviewed agreed, however, that constructing and  maintaining classed commercial fishing vessels will increase ownership  costs, due, in part, to the fees charged by classification societies, the  requirement to use certified materials and equipment, and annual  maintenance surveys, among other costs. Despite the uncertainty as to  how much classification will increase total ownership costs, vessel  builders and owners stated that the potential costs associated with  classing have contributed to reduced orders for new vessels and other  changes. Extent to Which Classing  Increases Design,  Construction, and  Maintenance Costs Is  Uncertain All stakeholders we interviewed—classification society representatives,  vessel owners, and builders—stated that classing will increase ownership  costs. These stakeholders identified the following additional costs  associated with constructing a classed commercial fishing vessel: naval architect fees for vessel design; additional builder engineering costs associated with finalizing classed  classification society review of key equipment drawings and  certification of equipment manufacturing;  increased builder costs to construct vessel to classification society- approved design; additional supervision and testing during vessel construction; additional classification society design reviews and surveys, as  needed, during vessel design and construction; and  stability assessments and load line assignment. However, we were able to obtain only limited data on these costs as (1)  few vessels have been constructed and classed by the societies included  in our review and (2) the owners/operators and builders of these classed  vessels are reluctant to share the associated cost documentation,  considering it proprietary. Only six vessels have been constructed and  classed since July 2013, when expanded classification requirements took  effect. Two of these vessels—one tender and one catcher—were  classed because they were subject to the July 2013 expanded  classification requirements; the remaining four vessels were factory  processors, which have been required to meet classification society  standards since July 1990. All of the classed vessels constructed since  July 2013 are greater than 130 feet in length and are owned by  companies that own and operate multiple fishing vessels, with the  exception of the tender vessel which is 67 feet long and owned and  operated by a non-profit organization. Commercial Fishing Vessel  Vessel type: Trawler (catcher or  catcher/processor)  Fleet length: 40-500 feet or longer  Trawlers fish for pollock, cod, sole, rockfish,  shrimp, and other species by towing funnel- shaped nets behind them in which the catch is  trapped by the forward movement of the boat.  Depending on the desired catch, trawlers tow  the nets in very shallow waters up to a depth  of about 6,500 feet along the seafloor. Large,  offshore factory trawlers can also process  their catch on board. Freezer trawlers are  outfitted with a refrigerating plant and freezing  equipment. Two builders, located in the Gulf of Mexico and Pacific regions, provided  quotes on classification society fees and a construction bid; another  builder provided an estimate of the costs associated with designing and  constructing a classed vessel approximately 90 feet in length.  Collectively, this information indicates that the additional costs could  range from approximately $300,000 to $1.2 million above the total  construction cost of a vessel not built to these standards. In general, vessel builders, owners, naval architects, marine safety  experts, academics, and other experts we spoke with provided widely  varying estimates on the impact that classification may have on vessel  construction costs, though many suggested a range of 10 to 30 percent.  In contrast, representatives from one classification society stated that  shipbuilders who currently build other ships to classification requirements  have stated estimates of 2.5 to 5 percent in overall construction costs  would be needed to construct a classed fishing vessel. We could not,  however, independently assess the accuracy of these claims. With regard to classification society fees, classification society  representatives stated that the fees they charge for vessel design  approval and surveys conducted during the construction of a classed  commercial fishing vessel vary depending on the complexity of the  vessel’s design, as well as the builder’s level of expertise in constructing  classed vessels. These fees typically account for 1.0 to 1.5 percent of the  costs to design and construct a classed vessel. A builder on the West  Coast provided us a quote from one of the classification societies of  approximately $136,000 for design reviews and construction surveys for a  $2 million, 58-foot commercial fishing vessel, or about 7 percent of the  vessel’s total construction costs. Another builder in the Gulf of Mexico  stated that constructing a 90-foot commercial fishing vessel generally  costs him approximately $2.3 million, but constructing the same vessel  with classification requirements would incur approximately $195,000 in  additional classification fees, about 8 percent of construction costs. A  vessel owner who owns and operates two catcher vessels off the coast of  Alaska and is currently constructing a 300-foot factory processing vessel  estimated that classification fees for vessel design and construction would  likely amount to $300,000—approximately 0.4 percent—of the vessel’s  $70 million total purchase price. These fees included an initial review of the vessel’s design and,  generally, the review of one set of drawing revisions. If a builder needs to  resubmit the vessel’s design to the classification society for another  review, each submission could be subject to additional fees. Representatives from both ABS and DNV GL explained that the fees they  charge do not account for additional design and oversight services that  might be necessary during the construction process, especially if this is  the first time that the vessel builder has constructed a classed vessel. Vessel owners and builders told us that other costs associated with  constructing a classed commercial fishing vessel include the use of  certain materials, such as steel, and key equipment, such as generators  and the engine, which may be more costly to purchase from the  manufacturer since the items must be certified by the classification  society. As part of classing, surveyors from classification societies are  required to certify the fabrication and/or assembly of certain materials and  key equipment prior to installation on the vessel. For example, two  individuals—a vessel owner and someone with years of experience  working in the commercial fishing industry—provided documentation that  showed that two types of class certified equipment—generators and  engines—cost approximately 6 to 16 percent more than the same, non- certified equipment. DNV GL representatives estimated that, in total, the  class-certified materials and key equipment can cost an additional  $20,000-$30,000 more than the cost of non-certified equipment. Vessel owners we interviewed stated that they may incur additional costs  to maintain a classed commercial fishing vessel over the vessel’s lifetime.  These costs include fees paid to classification society surveyors to  conduct annual surveys—required as part of regular class maintenance— as well as periodic surveys—more extensive surveys generally required  every 5 years—on the vessels. Representatives from one classification  society estimated that, depending on size, age, and condition, the fees for  fishing vessel annual surveys can range between $1,500 and $5,000,  while the fees for periodic surveys can range between $6,000 and  $25,000. Classification society representatives stated that the high end of  the fees for periodic surveys are influenced by the fact that many owners  choose to perform major maintenance, upgrades, and modifications at the  same time, which increases the overall survey items and, therefore, the  cost. Owners we interviewed stated that in addition to these annual  survey fees, they are required to pay for the surveyor’s travel costs as  well as any necessary repairs the surveyor identifies. Those vessel  owners we interviewed estimated that the annual maintenance costs for a  classed commercial fishing vessel—including fees, travel costs, and  repairs—could range from $28,000 to as much as $150,000. For  example, an invoice we received from one vessel owner totaled over  $70,000. More than one-third of the total cost was due to fees for  periodic, annual, and equipment surveys. The majority of the remaining  costs were associated with the purchase and installation of new  machinery and repairs made to the vessel, as well as travel expenses  paid to the classification society. Vessel owners we interviewed, or received correspondence from,  provided examples of potential challenges that arise when maintaining  classed vessels, such as annual surveys being scheduled at a time or  location that interferes with fishing operations; the unavailability of  classification surveyors at a convenient location; and the time to obtain  classed materials or equipment to be delivered before an emergency  repair can be completed. One owner noted that he once waited 2 weeks  and paid three times more to replace three square feet of classification  society-certified steel. However, ABS representatives stated that vessel  owners have a 6-month window to meet their annual survey requirement,  and stated that ABS generally has two surveyors working in Alaska at any  given time and the society is open to adding more surveyors in Alaska as  needed. Similarly, DNV GL representatives stated that to mitigate the cost  and time associated with surveyors’ travel, the society has begun to use  networked or stand-alone electronic devices to record certain non-major  classing inspections. Several industry representatives noted that some of the additional costs  associated with constructing and maintaining classed vessels may be  partially offset by decreased insurance premium costs and improved  vessel resale value for vessel owners. Coast Guard officials we  interviewed similarly noted that classed vessels may command a higher  resale price. However, marine insurance underwriters we interviewed  stated that prior claim history—not classification—is the key factor that  influences insurance premiums for commercial fishing vessels. One of the  underwriters added that owners of classed commercial fishing vessels  might actually pay higher insurance premiums than owners of non- classed vessels because hull and machinery claims for classed vessels  would likely be more expensive to repair. With regard to whether a  classed commercial fishing vessel has a higher resale value, we spoke to  some vessel owners who stated that the maintenance costs associated  with owning a classed vessel would actually deter them from purchasing  an existing classed vessel. Commercial Fishing  Stakeholders’ Views on  the Potential Impact of  Classing Many of the stakeholders we spoke with told us that classing and its  associated costs have and will continue to change aspects of the  commercial fishing business, including profitability and construction of  new vessels. Several stakeholders stated that their ability to absorb the  additional costs due to classing is dependent on the relative health of the  fishing businesses involved. Vessel owners we interviewed in less  profitable regions and fisheries, such as the shrimp fishery in the Gulf of  Mexico and the groundfish fishery in the North Atlantic, believed that their  businesses will be adversely impacted by the increased construction  costs associated with classing. One vessel owner, whose small-scale  commercial fishing operation in the Gulf of Mexico employs approximately  40 individuals and operates 3 vessels, estimated that constructing a  vessel to meet classification society standards would increase overall  construction costs by 30 percent, an amount she believes that she cannot  absorb as shrimp prices are sensitive to the international market. While vessel owners in more profitable regions and fisheries believed that  their businesses could absorb the increased construction costs  associated with classing, one owner whose family has fishing operations  in 10 different fisheries, some of which are profitable and some that are  less so, noted that the addition of a newly constructed classed vessel to  his fleet—which he estimated cost about 35 percent more due to classing  requirements—was still a sound business decision on his part since the  vessel will operate in the more profitable North Pacific fishery. However,  he added that his family would not incur similar costs to construct a new  classed vessel to operate in the scallop industry, in which they also have  business operations. Another issue that arose in our discussions with stakeholders was that  the perception of the increased cost associated with constructing a  classed commercial fishing vessel—regardless of what the actual cost  increase may be—appears to be affecting vessel owners’ decisions to  purchase new vessels. Among the 13 vessel builders we interviewed, 9  builders stated that classification requirements and their perceived costs  have contributed to a significant reduction in orders for new commercial  fishing vessels, regardless of vessel length. One builder noted that he  reduced the number of employees from nearly 100 to less than 50  workers and began constructing other vessels, such as tug boats, in  addition to commercial fishing vessels to keep his remaining employees  employed. One industry representative stated that owners, especially those with  smaller operations in less profitable fisheries, may find it cost prohibitive  to recapitalize their vessel or fleet. Similarly, vessel owners stated that  they will likely choose to continue operating their aging vessels or choose  to close their business in lieu of purchasing new classed vessels. Other vessel owners stated that they would either consider, or already  have chosen, to purchase and update an older commercial fishing vessel  instead of constructing a new classed vessel. For example, one vessel  owner we interviewed, whose family has fished commercially along the  Gulf of Mexico for 150 years, stated that the new classing requirements  for commercial fishing vessels have resulted in several businesses  rebuilding older vessels, where a new vessel is constructed around the  original keel of an older vessel that is not subject to classing  requirements. Another vessel owner we interviewed, whose family also  has a history in commercial fishing, told us that he and other members of  his family would like to build several new vessels to add to their already  sizable fleet, but have decided not to do so because of the perceived  costs associated with the classing process. Instead, this vessel owner  commented that some members of his family recently purchased two  wrecked commercial fishing vessels and intend to construct a new vessel  using the wrecked vessel’s 40-year-old keel. Industry trade representatives also voiced concerns that when owners  choose to recapitalize their vessels, classing requirements could  encourage owners to purchase smaller vessels to avoid classification  requirements. For example, one builder we interviewed offers a design for  a 45 to 49 foot crab vessel, which, because of its size, would not be  subject to classification requirements. The builder explained that the  vessel would be shorter than other vessels operating in the Bering Sea  and could be less safe for the crew onboard in the event of an accident.  Further, naval architects we interviewed stated that they know of vessel  owners who have begun to seek new commercial fishing vessels less  than 50 feet in length. Classification Can  Contribute Safety  Benefits, but Other  Factors and  Measures Also Play a  Significant Role Federal agency officials tasked with overseeing the commercial fishing  industry, as well as industry representatives, academics, builders, and  owners we interviewed, agreed that classing provides some benefits and  could contribute to overall vessel safety by providing independent and  ongoing oversight to ensure quality and seaworthiness during the design  and construction of the vessel, as well as through annual maintenance  surveys. At the same time, however, vessel owners we interviewed noted  that overall vessel safety can also be improved by instituting other safety  measures or design approaches. As shown in figure 6, classification  addresses vessel design, construction, and maintenance, but training,  safety and lifesaving equipment, environmental, and other factors also  contribute to commercial fishing vessel safety. As one industry trade representative explained, classing commercial  fishing vessels is another approach for improving industry safety by  ensuring key systems aboard the vessel are in good, working order,  thereby potentially breaking the chain of events leading to a major  catastrophe at sea, such as a vessel sinking. According to a  representative for a larger commercial fishing company, vessel owners  benefit from the oversight provided by classification society surveyors  during the construction process. Classification society surveyors provide  another set of eyes and the perspective of a third party. An owner of a  large commercial fishing business stated that vessel owners who do not  maintain their classed vessels, and thereby jeopardize the lives of their  crew, risk losing their vessel’s classification certificate, which, in turn, will  prevent them from operating the vessel legally. Overall, commercial fishing industry representatives supported the  requirement that commercial fishing vessels with factory processors  onboard be classed because of the risks these vessel owners face with  such a large number of factory workers—who are not mariners—working  onboard. Most vessel owners that we interviewed or received written  documentation from, however, did not support classification for smaller  commercial fishing vessels—especially those operated by individual  owners with small crews. To illustrate that different factors contribute to commercial fishing vessel  safety, we collected data on fishing vessel accident claims from two U.S.- based marine insurance underwriters that insure commercial fishing  vessels. While our findings are not generalizable to all insurance claims  made between 2013 and 2016, we found that protection and indemnity  claims, which cover liability for bodily injury and third-party damage— accounted for nearly two-thirds of insurance claims for these two  underwriting companies. Hull and material claims also comprised a  significant number of overall insurance claims over the period. These  claims can be made as a result of physical loss of or damage to the  vessel, including equipment, engines, and machinery. Figure 7 shows the  number and types of claims for 2013 through 2016 from two marine  underwriting companies we interviewed. One vessel owner we interviewed stressed the importance of safety  training so crew members are capable of using lifesaving equipment  when it is needed. She referred us to a Coast Guard analysis of fishing  vessel casualties occurring from 1992 to 2010 that found fatalities from  water exposure might have been prevented if personal floatation devices  or survival suits had been used. In its analysis, the Coast Guard found  that 32 percent of all fatalities between 1992 and 2010 resulted from crew  falling overboard, being pulled overboard by equipment, or diving from the  vessel. Other vessel owners who operate in the Gulf of Mexico stressed several  safety measures, such as:  requiring vessel crew members to undergo routine drug testing;  requiring vessel crew members to wear personal floatation devices  when working on deck;  requiring all commercial fishing vessels that use a winch to hoist catch  from the ocean to install either a guard or emergency shut-off  mechanism; and mandating skills-based training and testing of safety procedures for  each vessel crewmember, not just the individual in charge of the  vessel, as the law currently requires. Commercial fishing industry representatives and vessel owners we  interviewed also stated that stability assessments and load line  assignments—which are required for fishing vessels built after July 1,  2013, that are 79 feet or longer—may provide safety benefits comparable  to classification. A load line indicates the point where the waterline should  reach when a vessel is properly loaded. As part of a load-line certification,  a vessel’s seaworthiness is assessed, which involves the completion of  stability documentation, providing the operator with instructions for safely  loading and operating the vessel. Load line requirements cover some of  the same items as classification rules, such as pre-construction review  and approval of plans by the assigning authority, weathertight and  watertight integrity, and periodic inspections to verify proper maintenance  and ensure that modifications to the vessel do not compromise  seaworthiness. Alternative-to-Class  Approach Offers  Benefits Relative to  Classification, but  Key Elements  Remain Open to  Interpretation The alternative-to-class approach provides some flexibility and potential  cost savings to vessel owners compared to classification, but we did not  identify a builder who has constructed a vessel using this approach. The  Coast Guard has not issued regulations or guidance to clarify how the  alternative-to-class approach will be implemented, which increases  uncertainty on how key steps in the process should be conducted. The Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2015 created an alternative-to- class approach for vessels at least 50 feet and not more than 79 feet in  length built after February 8, 2016. Under the alternative-to-class  approach, a commercial fishing vessel is designed to standards  equivalent to classification society standards. For example, the  alternative-to-class approach requires a stability assessment and an  assigned loading mark (or load line) certification that construction is in  accordance with design, and written stability and loading instructions that  are provided to the owner or operator to ensure a robust hull and  weathertight and watertight integrity. As such, the structural strength of  the vessel’s hull, reliability and function of major systems—including  propulsion and steering—and watertight integrity of the vessel are  expected to be comparable to a classed vessel. However, the alternative- to-class approach provides some flexibility to builders and owners in how  to do so, as shown in figure 8. The alternative-to-class approach provides additional flexibilities to  builders and owners and potentially reduces compliance costs compared  to classing a new vessel. Examples of the flexibilities and potential  drawbacks the alternative-to-class approach offers include the following. It enables a marine surveyor of an organization accepted by the  Secretary of Homeland Security, rather than a classification society  representative, to verify that the vessel’s construction meets design  requirements and to conduct inspections. Coast Guard officials told us  that such individuals need to be licensed by an organization, such as  the Society of Accredited Marine Surveyors or the National  Association of Marine Surveyors, to be deemed qualified by the Coast  Guard. It reduces inspection requirement from annually to at least twice every  5 years, and according to Coast Guard officials, the alternative-to- class approach does not impose requirements for disassembly and  inspection of propulsion machinery, generators, electrical systems,  pumps, and piping. It requires owners to maintain records to demonstrate compliance with  the alternative-to-class approach, which may be burdensome for  some vessel owners. However, our interviews with commercial fishing stakeholders and our  analysis raised several questions as to how certain aspects of the  alternative-to-class approach will be implemented. For example,  stakeholders raised a number of questions about state licensing  requirements for naval engineers and architects, including whether  licenses issued in one state would be recognized by other states. One  naval engineer in the North Pacific told us that he had to secure an  engineering license to do work for a client in another state, despite  holding the same license in his home state. Coast Guard officials did not  believe that differences in state licensing requirements should be an  issue. Coast Guard officials explained that although each state may have  different licensing requirements, one professional society sets the  technical standards for professional engineers and that these common  standards apply across all states. Despite this, it is not certain if individual  states will recognize other states’ engineering licenses. Table 3 highlights  our analysis of the key issues raised by industry stakeholders during the  course of our review. Although Coast Guard officials believe that the legislation clearly outlined  the requirements for this approach, numerous open questions exist  regarding implementation of the alternative-to-class approach, as  depicted in table 3. The Coast Guard has not yet issued regulations or  guidance concerning the alternative-to-class approach. Coast Guard  officials noted they are still in the process of developing a final rule to  implement earlier legislation, including the Coast Guard Authorization Act  of 2010, as amended by the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation  Act of 2012. At the time of our review, Coast Guard officials  acknowledged they were uncertain when this rule would be finalized.  These officials stated that any effort to promulgate rules for the 2016  alternative-to-class approach will not start until after the final rule  regarding the 2010 and 2012 acts is issued. However, Coast Guard  officials noted they were considering developing a policy letter to provide  some additional guidance on implementing the alternative-to-class  approach, but provided no timeframe for doing so. The Coast Guard is responsible for implementing the alternative-to-class  statute, but questions remain regarding how this implementation will be  achieved. While the 2016 legislation did not require the Coast Guard to  promulgate guidance or regulations for the alternative-to-class approach,  regulations are one of the primary tools federal agencies use to  implement law and policy. The general process by which federal agencies  develop and issue regulations allows the public an opportunity to provide  information to agencies on the potential effects of a rule or to suggest  alternatives for agencies to consider prior to publication of the final rule.  Federal internal control standards recommend that agency management  communicate with both internal and external stakeholders the necessary  quality information, such as regulations describing procedures to be  followed to comply with the alternative-to-class legislation, to achieve  objectives. Without specific written procedures—either in the form of  regulations or guidance—the Coast Guard cannot ensure consistent  implementation of the alternative-to-class approach. Conclusions Since the late 1980s, Congress had undertaken efforts to improve  commercial fishing vessel safety, including establishing classification  requirements for all three types of commercial fishing vessels—catchers,  tenders, and processors—and, most recently, establishing an alternative- to-class approach as a less-prescriptive option for smaller vessels.  Accurate data collected by the Coast Guard during incident  investigations—such as the fishery in which the vessels operate— is  necessary to understand which fishing vessels are involved in accidents.  In addition, reliable data on the total number of commercial fishing  vessels that are actively fishing and information on key vessel  characteristics—including vessel age, length, and its fishery—is  necessary to calculate rates and establish trend information for  commercial fishing vessels involved in accidents. Without such  information, Congress, the Coast Guard, and other federal agencies— such as NIOSH—will not be able to assess the factors that contribute to  commercial fishing vessel accidents, injuries, and fatalities. While the costs of classification cannot be reliably measured, industry  stakeholders perceive the potential costs associated with classing— regardless of what the actual costs are—as impacting the commercial  fishing industry, including reduced orders for new vessels, and the  continued operation of aging vessels, and the loss of income for  commercial fishers. The alternative-to-class approach provides greater  flexibility and potential cost savings to owners of smaller commercial  fishing vessels. While not required to do so, the Coast Guard has not  issued guidance or promulgated regulations to clarify aspects of the  alternative-to-class approach. However, the absence of timely regulations  or guidance has contributed to confusion among the commercial fishing  industry and increases the risk of potentially inconsistent implementation  of the alternative-to-class approach. Recommendations for  Executive Action We are making a total of six recommendations, including four to the  Commandant of the Coast Guard, one to the Director of NIOSH, and one  to the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries for the National Marine  Fisheries Service: The Coast Guard should ensure that the data it collects during  commercial fishing vessel incident investigations, including the fishery  in which the commercial fishing vessel is involved, is accurately  captured. (Recommendation 1) The Coast Guard should form a working group with NIOSH and the  National Marine Fisheries Service to determine an efficient means to  establish a reliable estimate of the population of commercial fishing  vessels actively fishing, landing, and selling their catch; the fishery in  which a vessel operates; and key vessel characteristics including, but  not limited to, vessel age and length. (Recommendation 2) Once reliable data are available, the Coast Guard, or another agency  identified by the working group, should assess the rates of  commercial fishing vessel accidents, injuries, and fatalities to  determine whether certain factors—including vessel length and region  of operation, among other things—affect these rates.  (Recommendation 3) The Coast Guard should issue regulations or guidance to clarify and  implement the alternative-to-class approach. (Recommendation 4) NIOSH should form a working group with the Coast Guard and the  National Marine Fisheries Service to determine an efficient means to  establish a reliable estimate of the population of commercial fishing  vessels actively fishing, landing, and selling their catch; the fishery in  which a vessel operates; and key vessel characteristics including, but  not limited to, vessel age and length. (Recommendation 5) The National Marine Fisheries Service should form a working group  with the Coast Guard and NIOSH to determine an efficient means to  establish a reliable estimate of the population of commercial fishing  vessels actively fishing, landing, and selling their catch; the fishery in  which a vessel operates; and key vessel characteristics including, but  not limited to, vessel age and length. (Recommendation 6) Agency Comments  and Our Response We provided a draft of this product to the Departments of Homeland  Security; Health and Human Services; and Commerce to respond on  behalf of the Coast Guard, NIOSH, and NOAA, respectively for review  and comment. The Departments of Health and Human Services and  Commerce concurred with the recommendation directed to their  components. The Department of Homeland Security concurred with three  of the four recommendations. The departments’ written comments are  reprinted in appendixes III-V, respectively, and summarized below. We  also sent a draft of this product to NTSB for their review and comment.  The departments and NTSB also provided technical comments, which we  incorporated as appropriate. The Department of Homeland Security concurred with our  recommendation to ensure that the data the Coast Guard collects during  commercial fishing incident investigations, including the fishery in which  the vessel is involved, is accurately captured. It noted that the Coast  Guard will reemphasize the need to collect fishery data as part of its  training programs and qualification requirements of its investigators.  Additionally, it stated that the Coast Guard will consider adding additional  data fields within its Marine Information for Safety and Law Enforcement  database to improve the accuracy of the data collected. The Departments of Homeland Security, Health and Human Services,  and Commerce concurred with our recommendations directed to them to  form a working group to establish a reliable estimate of the population of  commercial fishing vessels, the fishery in which the vessel operates, and  key vessel characteristics. The Department of Homeland Security noted  that neither the Coast Guard nor the National Marine Fisheries Service  have access to data for fisheries within economic zones managed by the  states. As such, the Department of Homeland Security recommended that  the (1) working group be established at the regional level and (2) regional  fisheries management councils coordinate with individual states to collect  needed data and, in turn, provide that data to the Coast Guard and the  National Marine Fisheries Service. Additionally, the Department of Health  and Human Services stated that NIOSH will assist in identifying ways to  establish comprehensive vessel counts, which could include engaging  state agencies. The agencies’ comments reflect the complexity of and need to capture  reliable data of the size and characteristics of the commercial fishing  vessel fleet. Determining the working group’s membership, structure,  roles and responsibilities is an essential first step to doing so. Regardless  of the working group’s structure, it will be important to ensure that the  data collected is done in a manner that allows it to be aggregated and  analyzed in various ways, including at the national level. The Department of Homeland Security did not concur with our  recommendation that the Coast Guard assess the rates of commercial  fishing vessel accidents, injuries, and fatalities to determine whether  certain factors—such as vessel length and region of operation—affect  these rates. The Coast Guard stated that it had limited resources and  capabilities to conduct such assessments and noted that NIOSH studies  marine incidents to identify causal factors in fishing vessel casualties,  which could more effectively determine casualty rates. We agree that NIOSH has, and can, play an important role in identifying  commercial fishing fatalities and regional risk factors, but such  assessments typically focus on fatalities in specific fisheries, and  generally did not consider such factors as vessel length or whether the  vessel has been classed. Further, the Coast Guard is the agency  responsible for developing and enforcing regulations related to  commercial fishing vessel safety, including classification requirements  and the alternative-to-class approach. As such, the Coast Guard’s office  of Investigations and Casualty Analysis leads the agency’s investigation  program to promote safety, protect the environment, and prevent future  accidents. As part of its efforts, this office has previously analyzed data  on commercial fishing vessel accidents. While we continue to believe that  our recommendation is appropriately targeted to the Coast Guard, we  acknowledge that the working group could determine that another  appropriate agency other than the Coast Guard is better positioned to  conduct this analysis. As such, we have revised our recommendation to  provide more flexibility to the agencies in determining how best to meet  the intent of our recommendation. The Department of Homeland Security concurred with our  recommendation that the Coast Guard issue regulations or guidance to  clarify and implement the alternative-to-class approach. It noted that the  Coast Guard is in the process of developing a more formal policy on best  practices and expectations of the industry and implementing guidelines  consistent with the intent of the legislation, which it hopes to complete by  December 31, 2018. We also provided a draft of this report to the three classification societies  we included in our review—ABS, DNV GL, and RINA—for their review  and comment. ABS and DNV GL provided technical comments, which we  incorporated as appropriate. We are sending copies of the report to the appropriate congressional  committees. We are also sending a copy to the Secretary of Homeland  Security, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Chairman of  the National Transportation Safety Board, the Secretary of Commerce,  and other interested parties. In addition, this report is available at no  charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov. Should you or your staff have questions, please contact me at (202) 512- 4841 or dinapolit@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of  Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page  of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report are  listed in appendix VI. Appendix I: Selected Countries Have Varying  Requirements for Classing Commercial  Fishing Vessels Other selected countries that, like the United States, are members of the  Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and have  sizeable commercial fishing industries have established requirements for  designing, constructing, and—in some instances—maintaining  commercial fishing vessels to classification society standards, as  described in table 4. Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and  Methodology This report evaluates the costs and benefits of classing commercial  fishing vessels. Specifically, we assessed (1) what is known about the  numbers and rates of commercial fishing vessel accidents, injuries, and  fatalities; (2) what is known about the costs to construct and maintain  classed commercial fishing vessels built since July 2013 and the effects  of classing on vessel builders and owners; (3) the benefits associated  with classing commercial fishing vessels; and (4) how the alternative-to- class approach compares with building and maintaining commercial  fishing vessels to classification society standards. To assess what is known about the numbers of commercial fishing vessel  accidents, injuries, and fatalities, we collected and analyzed data from the  Coast Guard’s Marine Information for Safety and Law Enforcement  database on commercial fishing vessel investigations for calendar years  2006 through 2015 to identify the number of vessel accidents and/or  injuries or fatalities. We also collected relevant Coast Guard data on  enforcement actions and boardings. To assess the reliability of the data,  we reviewed related documentation, spoke with knowledgeable agency  officials, and performed electronic testing for obvious errors in accuracy  and completeness. Using latitudinal and longitudinal information collected  during the Coast Guard’s investigation of each commercial fishing vessel  accident, we determined where the accident occurred and limited our  analysis to those accidents that involved U.S. vessels and occurred  between 3 nautical miles and 200 nautical miles from shore, an area that  is generally referred to as U.S. federal waters. In the instances of Texas,  Puerto Rico, and the Gulf coast of Florida, we used the area between 9  nautical miles and 200 nautical miles from shore, which is consistent with  federal waters for those states. We found errors in the longitudinal and  latitudinal data and could not match commercial fishing vessel accidents  to an accurate location for 243 observations; we excluded these  observations from our analysis. Overall, we determined that the data were  sufficiently reliable for reporting the overall number of accidents, injuries,  and fatalities over this time period. We attempted to separate the data by fishery management council region  and interstate marine fisheries commission—regional partners of the  National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) that ensure  sustainable fishery management throughout the United States—using the  longitudinal and latitudinal boundaries of each region and commission.  However, we found that the geographic location in which each accident  occurred is not sufficiently reliable for determining the region or fishery in  which a commercial fishing vessel operates. For example, the  geographic location of an accident does not necessarily signify that the  commercial fishing vessel was engaged in one of the fisheries managed  by the regional council. In addition, according to National Marine  Fisheries Service officials, the three interstate commissions work almost  entirely on issues pertaining to shared fishery resources within the  boundaries of their respective states and generally do not manage fishing  activity in federal waters, so we could not reasonably assign an accident  in federal waters to a region managed by one of these interstate  commissions. We also collected and analyzed data from the National Institute for  Occupational Safety and Health’s (NIOSH) Commercial Fishing Incident  Database on commercial fishing fatalities for calendar years 2006 through  2015 to identify causes of commercial fishing vessel fatalities over this  period. To assess the reliability of the data, we reviewed related  documentation, spoke with knowledgeable NIOSH officials, and  performed electronic testing for obvious errors in accuracy and  completeness. We determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for  the purposes of reporting the number of fatalities over time. We also  examined reports from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)  investigations of commercial fishing vessel accidents for calendar years  2006 through 2015, which include some of the most serious accidents, to  describe what NTSB identified as the probable causes of these accidents. To identify rates of commercial fishing vessel accidents over time, we  requested data from the Coast Guard on the population of commercial  fishing vessels that were actively catching, landing, and selling their  catch. We collected Coast Guard data on the number of commercial  fishing vessels from 2006 to 2015 with a valid certificate of  documentation, which indicates that the vessel is registered with the  Coast Guard and is greater than 5 net tons. We also contacted NIOSH  and NOAA to discuss the ways, if any, that these agencies have  estimated the size of the active commercial fishing vessel fleet for their  studies or programs. After contacting the Coast Guard, NIOSH, and  NOAA for the purpose of collecting data on the total number of active  U.S. commercial fishing vessels, we determined that we could not identify  sufficiently reliable data about the size of the active U.S. commercial  fishing vessel fleet for 2006 through 2015 for the purposes of our  analysis. These data reliability problems precluded us from calculating  rates of accidents, injuries, or fatalities over this period. We interviewed officials from the Coast Guard, NIOSH, and NSTB  regarding the investigations and analyses they have conducted on  commercial fishing vessel accidents and recommendations they have  made to improve safety on board these vessels. We also interviewed  officials from NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service to discuss the  roles and responsibilities of the regional fishery management councils  and interstate marine fisheries commissions. To assess what is known about the costs to construct and maintain  classed commercial fishing vessels built since July 2013 and the effects  of classing on vessel builders and owners, we collected data on the costs  associated with constructing and maintaining classed commercial fishing  vessels from vessel builders and owners willing to share this information.  Specifically, we analyzed (1) classification society design review fees  quoted to two vessel builders located in the Gulf of Mexico and Pacific  regions and other documentation these builders provided, including a  construction bid; (2) another vessel builder’s cost estimate for  constructing a 90 foot long classed commercial fishing vessel to be used  in the Gulf of Mexico shrimp industry; and (3) documentation provided by  one vessel owner and another individual with extensive experience in the  commercial fishing industry including the cost of various engines and  generators—class and non-class certified—that could be installed during  the construction process. We compared the quotes for these generators  and engines to determine the cost differential between class and non- class certified equipment. The findings based on these data are not  generalizable, but they do provide insight into the additional costs  associated with constructing a classed commercial fishing vessel. In addition, we conducted interviews and discussion sessions with  stakeholders in the commercial fishing industry to obtain the perspectives  of vessel owners and/or operators, vessel builders, and commercial  fishing organizations. Specifically, we interviewed 13 vessel builders, and  36 vessel owners and/or operators from across the United States,  including both those with large and small businesses. We also  interviewed representatives from 4 commercial fishing trade organizations  that represent fisheries in Alaska and the Bering Sea, the Gulf of Mexico,  the Pacific Ocean, and the Mid and North Atlantic Ocean. To ensure we captured many different perspectives, we held three  discussion sessions with stakeholders in the commercial fishing industry,  inviting interested parties to attend, including vessel owners and builders;  trade organization representatives; and naval architects, at locations  across the country, including Garden Grove, California; New Orleans,  Louisiana; and Seattle, Washington. In total, 39 individuals involved in the  commercial fishing industry attended one or more of these discussion  sessions. From the testimonial information we collected through these  interviews and discussion sessions, we identified common themes,  including the impact of classing on vessel builders and owners. We also  interviewed representatives from the three predominant classification  societies in the United States—American Bureau of Shipping (ABS), Det  Norske Veritas Germanischer Lloyd (DNV GL), and RINA to discuss fees  they charge as part of the classification process.  We interviewed three  marine underwriters who insure commercial fishing vessels off the coast  of the Gulf of Mexico, Pacific Ocean, and the Atlantic Ocean to discuss  how classification affects insurance premiums. To assess the benefits associated with classing commercial fishing  vessels, we obtained the perspectives of vessel owners and/or operators,  vessel builders, and commercial fishing trade organizations, and  classification societies during the interviews and discussion sessions  described above. The information obtained from interviews and  discussion sessions cannot be generalized to all vessel builders, owners,  or operators; however, the information provides important insights on the  experiences of these groups. We also spoke with representatives from  ABS, DNV GL, and RINA, as well as marine safety experts, naval  architects, academics who study commercial fishing vessel safety, and  marine underwriters in fishing industries off the coast of the Gulf of  Mexico, the Pacific Ocean, and the Atlantic Ocean. From these interviews  and discussion sessions, we identified common themes. We also reviewed Coast Guard and NIOSH studies related to improving  commercial fishing vessel safety and the benefits each found with respect  to classing commercial fishing vessels or improved accident outcomes.  We collected data on the number of insurance claims submitted by  commercial fishing vessel owners from 2013 through 2016 to two of the  three marine underwriting companies we interviewed—who were willing  to share this information—to determine the number of hull and machinery  claims and the number of protection and indemnity claims that these  companies processed over the period. The findings based on these data  are not generalizable, but they illustrate the types of insurance claims  made by commercial fishing vessel owners. To evaluate how the alternative-to-class approach compares with building  and maintaining commercial fishing vessels to classification society  standards, we collected and reviewed relevant statutes, documentation of  Coast Guard rulemaking efforts, regulations, policies and guidance, as  well as classification society rules and standards. We compared the  requirements of the alternative-to-class approach with the steps  associated with classification to determine the similarities of both  approaches. We interviewed cognizant officials from the Coast Guard to  discuss the current policies and regulations in place to address  commercial fishing vessels and how an alternative-to-class approach will  be implemented. We also interviewed representatives from classification  societies—including DNV GL, ABS, and RINA—and commercial fishing  vessel owners and operators, naval architects, builders and marine  underwriters to discuss both approaches. We also collected information  on commercial fishing vessel classification requirements from a non- generalizable sample of comparison countries that, like the United States,  are members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and  Development and have sizeable fishing industries. Specifically, we  selected Canada, Denmark, Spain, and the United Kingdom, represented  among countries with the largest fishing harvests over 2010-2014,  according to country data reported by the United Nations’ Food and  Agriculture Organization. We collected and reviewed documentation of  relevant requirements for the United States and each selected country  and discussed the requirements with officials from the selected countries.  We present this analysis in appendix I. We conducted this performance audit from June 2016 to December 2017  in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives. Appendix III: Comments from the  Department of Homeland Security Appendix IV: Comments from the  Department of Commerce Appendix V: Comments from the Department  of Health and Human Services Appendix VI: GAO Contacts and Staff  Acknowledgments GAO Contact Staff  Acknowledgments In addition to the contact above, Diana Moldafsky, Assistant Director;  Laura Jezewski; Pedro Almoguera; Deanna Burns; Lorraine Ettaro;  Danielle Giese; Laura Greifner; Kristine Hassinger; Ramzi Nemo; LeAnna  Parkey; Erin Stockdale; Robin Wilson; and Ellen Wolfe made key  contributions to this report.
Commercial fishing has one of the highest death rates of any industry in the United States. Fishing vessels that are at least 50 feet long and were built after 2013 are required by law to be built and maintained to rules developed by a classification society, a process known as classing. Congress created an alternative-to-class approach in 2016, allowing certain size vessels to be designed and built to equivalent standards in lieu of classing. The Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2015 included a provision for GAO to review the costs and benefits of classing commercial fishing vessels. This report assesses (1) known numbers and rates of commercial fishing vessel accidents, injuries, and fatalities; (2) what is known about the costs, effects, and benefits of constructing and maintaining classed vessels; and (3) how the alternative-to-class approach compares with classing. GAO collected data on vessel accidents, injuries, and fatalities; interviewed vessel owners, builders, classification societies, Coast Guard, and other agencies; and studied classing costs. The Coast Guard, the only military service within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), investigated 2,101 commercial fishing vessel accidents between 2006 and 2015 that occurred in federal waters; however, because there are no reliable data on the total number of commercial fishing vessels that are actively fishing, rates of accidents, injuries, and fatalities cannot be determined. Agencies, such as the Coast Guard, keep records of accidents, but without reliable data on active vessels, trend information cannot be determined. The Coast Guard and the National Marine Fisheries Service have separate efforts to collect data that could be used to develop an estimate of active commercial fishing vessels, but each agency is taking a different approach to do so. These and other agencies agreed that it is important to calculate rates to assess commercial fishing vessel accidents, injuries, and fatalities. Establishing a mechanism—such as a working group—to coordinate efforts and collect reliable data on the number of active vessels and key characteristics, such as vessel age and length, would allow the agencies to do so in an efficient manner. While data on the costs to design, construct, and maintain classed vessels are limited, vessel owners, builders, and classification societies agree that classification increases costs and told GAO that the perceived costs of classing may affect vessel owners' decisions to purchase new vessels to avoid classification requirements. However, they also agree that classification is one of many factors that contribute to safety. The alternative-to-class approach is more flexible than classing—for example, in its use of marine surveyors to verify vessel construction. Industry stakeholders and GAO's analysis, however, identified numerous questions and uncertainties regarding implementation of the approach, including licensing requirements for naval engineers and architects. The Coast Guard has not issued regulations or guidance to address these issues on the alternative-to-class approach due, in part, to its ongoing efforts to issue regulations to implement safety-related legislation enacted in 2010 and 2012. However, without specific written procedures—either in the form of regulations or guidance—the Coast Guard cannot ensure consistent implementation of the alternative-to-class approach.