[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 152 (Tuesday, August 9, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-19340]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: August 9, 1994]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------


DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
50 CFR Part 663

[Docket No. 940817-4217; I.D. 032194D]
RIN No.: 0648-AF38

 

Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: NMFS issues a proposed rule that would revise groundfish trawl 
regulations and simplify the marking requirement for commercial 
vertical hook-and-line gear that is closely tended in the Pacific Coast 
Groundfish fishery. This proposed rule is intended to promote the goals 
and objectives of the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan 
(FMP) by enhancing the effectiveness of minimum mesh size regulations 
for trawl gear, making trawl gear requirements less likely to be 
circumvented, updating the regulations to be more consistent with 
changes in gear technology, and removing unnecessary burdens on the 
industry.

DATES: Comments must be received by September 8, 1994.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to J. Gary Smith, Acting Director, 
Northwest Region, National Marine Fisheries Service, 7600 Sand Point 
Way N.E., BIN C15700, Seattle, WA 98115-0070; or Rodney R. McInnis, 
Acting Director, Southwest Region, National Marine Fisheries Service, 
501 W. Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802-4213. Information 
relevant to this proposed rule has been compiled in aggregate form and 
is available for public review during business hours at the Office of 
the Director, Northwest Region, NMFS. Copies of the Environmental 
Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review (EA/RIR) can be obtained from the 
Pacific Fishery Management Council, 2000 SW First Avenue, Suite 420, 
Portland, OR 97201.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William L. Robinson at 206-526-6140, 
or Rodney R. McInnis at 310-980-4030.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS is issuing a proposed rule based on a 
recommendation of the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council), 
under the authority of the FMP and the Magnuson Fishery Conservation 
and Management Act (Magnuson Act). The FMP provides a socio-economic 
framework procedure under which gear regulations may be changed without 
amendment to the FMP. This proposed rule would affect trawl gear and 
commercial vertical hook-and-line gear (also called Portuguese 
longline).
    The proposed changes to the trawl regulations would: (1) Enhance 
the effectiveness of current trawl mesh-size requirements by applying 
the minimum mesh size to the entire net, rather than just the codend; 
(2) remove an unnecessary distinction between bottom trawls and roller 
trawls; (3) clarify the distinction between bottom and pelagic (mid-
water) trawls and reduce the possibility that pelagic gear is fished 
on-bottom; and (4) revise the chafing gear requirements to make them 
more enforceable and effective. This proposed rule also would remove an 
unnecessarily burdensome gear-marking requirement on vessels using 
commercial vertical hook-and-line gear. Minor administrative changes to 
the gear regulations also are included.
    The minimum mesh-size requirements apply only to the last 50 meshes 
of the trawl net. Prior to May 9, 1992, the minimum mesh size for 
roller trawl gear (bottom trawl gear with rollers or bobbins on the 
footrope of the net) was 3 inches (7.62 cm) in the Vancouver, Columbia, 
and Eureka subareas (north of 40 deg.30' N. lat., near Pt. Arena, CA). 
On May 9, 1992, this minimum mesh size was increased to 4.5 inches 
(11.43 cm) (57 FR 12212, April 9, 1992). This change was made: (1) To 
reduce waste caused by discarding fish too small to market that were 
more likely to be caught in the 3-inch (7.62-cm) mesh; (2) to postpone 
the need for more restrictive trip limits until later in the year; and 
(3) to increase long-term yield by reducing the harvest of juvenile 
groundfish. This change also made the minimum mesh size for bottom 
trawl and roller trawl gear uniform in the EEZ off Washington, Oregon, 
and California.
    Almost immediately upon implementation, the Council heard testimony 
that the regulations were being circumvented by tying off the net ahead 
of the last 50 meshes, thereby taking advantage of smaller mesh that 
could legally be used in the intermediate mesh in front of the codend 
(called the ``intermediate''). In July 1992, the Council convened its 
Legal Gear Committee of industry, state, Federal, and enforcement 
representatives to address this issue and to consider whether other 
changes to the gear requirements should be made. The Council again 
discussed gear changes in April 1993 and the draft EA was made 
available for public review in August 1993. The Council made its final 
recommendations, which appear in this proposed rule, at its September 
1993 meeting in Portland, OR. The Council's recommendations are 
summarized below:
    (1) Apply the trawl minimum mesh size throughout the net. 
Currently, the minimum mesh size applies to the last 50 meshes of the 
trawl net. This proposed rule would apply the minimum mesh size 
requirements throughout the net.
    Trawl mesh size affects the species and numbers of small or 
unmarketable fish that are brought on board and subsequently discarded. 
Fish can escape a trawl net by swimming or wiggling through the meshes. 
Each species has a different body shape, size, swimming speed, and 
endurance, and each has different net avoidance habits. Thus, the size 
and shape of meshes directly affects which fish are captured and which 
are more likely to escape. Most of the capture, and a large portion of 
the escape, occur in the codend, the terminal portion of the net, and 
codend minimum mesh-size restrictions can be an effective method for 
controlling the harvest of both target and incidental species. 
Therefore, the minimum mesh-size regulations were applied only to the 
terminal 50 meshes in the net. The effect of mesh size in the 
intermediate portion of the net (forward of the codend) is less clear. 
However, when a net is designed or modified to capture and hold fish in 
a forward portion of the net, and that forward portion of the net has 
smaller mesh than the codend, the effectiveness of the codend minimum 
mesh size is compromised. A large percentage of the west coast trawl 
fleet uses intermediates with at least a small section of mesh smaller 
than the legal mesh size in the codend (EA/RIR, page 13, see 
ADDRESSES). Requiring the mesh throughout the net to be no smaller than 
the current codend mesh size removes all incentive for cinching off the 
codend to circumvent the mesh size regulations.
    (2) Remove the legal distinction between bottom and roller trawls. 
Once the minimum mesh size became identical for bottom and roller 
trawls in May 1992 (57 FR 12212, April 9, 1992), the need to 
distinguish between the two in Federal regulations disappeared. The 
industry generally has considered roller trawls as a type of bottom 
trawl, so this change would be consistent with common usage.
    Current regulations require two continuous riblines along the 
length of bottom and roller trawls if a vessel carries a net of less 
than 4.5-inch (11.43-cm) mesh. The continuous riblines were intended to 
make it difficult to switch to illegal, smaller-mesh codends. Since 
bottom and roller trawls have the same minimum mesh size, there no 
longer would be an issue of switching codends between these gears. 
Although the potential exists for putting a pelagic trawl codend on a 
bottom trawl, the Legal Gear Committee felt that this was not likely to 
be a big problem, and that the ribline requirement was not a sufficient 
deterrent to someone intent on violating the regulations. This rule 
would eliminate the continuous ribline requirement.
    (3) Clarify the distinction between bottom and pelagic (midwater) 
trawls. The current pelagic trawl requirements state that the footrope 
at the trawl mouth must be unprotected and that sweeplines, including 
the bottom of the bridle, must be bare.
    The Council felt additional requirements are needed to ensure that 
small-mesh (3 inches or 7.62 cm) pelagic trawls would not be used on 
the sea floor. The Council developed two provisions that would make 
pelagic trawls impractical and ineffective for fishing on the bottom. 
First, rollers, bobbins, tires, discs, or any other similar device used 
to protect the net from the sea floor could not be used anywhere in the 
net. This would make the net fragile, if dragging across the sea floor. 
Second, either bare ropes or 16-inch (40.6-cm) minimum mesh must 
encircle the net for at least 20 feet (6.15 m) immediately behind the 
footrope or headrope of the net. This also would make the net weak if 
fished on the bottom.
    (4) Modify chafing gear requirements. Chafing gear is webbing or 
other material attached to a trawl net to protect the net from wear, 
particularly the codend as it scrapes the sea floor or slides onto the 
vessel. If attached in certain ways, chafing gear could reduce the 
effective mesh size by compressing or covering the webbing. The current 
regulations require that: (1) Chafing gear must not be connected 
directly to the terminal end of the net; (2) in bottom trawls, chafing 
gear must have a minimum mesh size of 15 inches (38.1 cm) unless only 
the bottom half of the codend is covered; and (3) in roller trawls in 
the Vancouver, Columbia, and Eureka subareas, and in pelagic trawls in 
all subareas, chafing gear covering the upper one-half of the codend 
must have a minimum mesh size of 6 inches (15.24 cm).
    The first provision appears not to be an effective way to enhance 
escapement. Even if chafing gear is not connected directly to the 
terminal end of the net, it could legally be attached near the terminal 
end, where the mesh is puckered and mesh size already is reduced, 
further impeding escapement. The second and third provisions need 
modification to be consistent with the proposed revisions for bottom 
and roller trawls.
    The Legal Gear Committee suggested new requirements for chafing 
gear. At any location on the net, chafing gear may cover no more than 
50 percent of the circumference of the net. No section of chafing gear 
may be longer than 50 meshes of the net to which it is attached, and 
each section must not be connected at its terminal end (the end 
farthest from the mouth of the net). Chafing gear must be attached 
outside any riblines or restraining straps. There is no limit on the 
number of sections of chafing gear that may be used as long as they, in 
combination, satisfy the provisions in this paragraph. These provisions 
are intended to provide the necessary gear protection without unduly 
impeding escapement of fish through the webbing.
    (5) Modify marking requirements for commercial vertical hook-and-
line gear. Prior to the mid-1980's, commercial vertical hook-and-line 
gear was not extensively used. The effectiveness of the gear and its 
low cost made it attractive to small vessels with access to nearshore 
reefs and other fishing grounds. As this gear became more popular, the 
Council became concerned about entanglement with similar gear and with 
mobile gear that is used in the same area. Consequently, on August 1, 
1987, the same marking requirements required of other fixed gear (pole, 
flag, light, radar reflector, and buoy) also were required of 
commercial vertical hook-and-line gear. However, problems have surfaced 
with the marking requirement. First, although the gear is anchored, it 
is lightweight and may be dragged by prevailing winds and currents. The 
radar reflector provides a large surface area that catches the wind and 
acts as a sail, making the gear less effective and forcing vessels to 
chase it. Second, the cost of the radar reflector, lights, and buoys is 
substantial in comparison to the cost of the gear itself. Since most 
vessels using this gear stay in the immediate vicinity of the gear, 
tending the lines frequently, there appears to be less need for such 
extensive marking requirements. The Council recommended that the gear 
marking requirements remain the same with one exception--that 
commercial vertical hook-and-line gear that is closely tended could be 
marked only with a single buoy clearly identifying the vessel's number 
or otherwise marked in accordance with state law. The Council's 
Enforcement Consultants Committee did not develop a definition for 
``closely tended,'' so such a definition was not included in the 
Council's recommendation. After further consideration, NMFS has 
developed a definition that it believes to be reasonable and 
enforceable, and has included it in this proposed rule for public 
comment. The proposed definition for ``closely tended'' is within 
sight, or within \1/4\ nautical mile (nm) (463 m) as determined by 
electronic navigational equipment, of the deployed gear. This 
definition should be easy to comply with and to enforce, and ensures 
that the fishing vessel stays near its gear.
    (6) Correct a mesh definition. Reference to double-ply mesh at 50 
CFR 663.2 has been used inappropriately. Ply refers to the number of 
strands twisted together to make twine. The regulation was intended to 
mean two lengths of twine tied together in one knot, or ``double-bar'' 
mesh. The definition is changed accordingly.
    Biological impacts. To the extent that escapement is enhanced and 
discards reduced by increasing the mesh size in the intermediate part 
of the net, landings will be more reflective of harvest levels and more 
accurate information may be included in the biological models 
estimating the status of the resource.
    An increase in escapement, and reduction in mortality, of small 
fish suggests increased survival to maturity and potentially an 
increase in spawning biomass. However, any changes in biomass probably 
would not be measurable with existing assessment measures.
    The other proposed changes to the bottom and roller trawl, chafing 
gear, and pelagic trawl requirements are intended to enhance compliance 
and effectiveness of current minimum mesh size requirements, and also 
are unlikely to have a measurable biological impact.
    The relaxed marking requirement for closely tended vertical hook-
and-line gear would not have a measurable biological impact. Closely 
tended gear is not likely to be lost and involved in ghost fishing.

Economic impacts.

    Operating efficiency. Replacing the intermediate of the net with 
larger mesh may result in operational differences that are difficult to 
detect. First, larger mesh generally has reduced water resistance or 
``drag'' when pulled through the water. Less drag means the net can be 
pulled faster with the same power or at the same speed with less power. 
Some reduction in fuel consumption could result. Second, the geometry 
of the net may change, which could affect fishing efficiency, and 
result in the need to modify the footrope or headrope configuration. 
The third and main effect is likely to be the amount of fish retained 
in the net. With larger mesh in the intermediate, more fish may fall 
through the mesh as the net is fishing or is retrieved. This is more a 
result of mesh size in the codend, however, than in the intermediate.
    Cost. There is no official record of the types and number of nets 
that would need to be replaced. However, some believe that nearly every 
vessel will need some modification to its nets. The cost of the changes 
to trawl gear is lessened if the changes are phased in as old gear 
wears out. Some fishermen have been aware of these proposed changes and 
already have modified their gear. The minimum cost to a fisherman with 
a relatively small vessel should be about $150 (if the gear does not 
already conform). The maximum cost would be for a net manufacturer to 
rebuild a fully-rigged trawl for as much as $6000. If more than one net 
is used, which often is the case, the cost could be at least doubled. 
However, nets normally must be replaced periodically as they wear out, 
so the conversion price should be viewed as a maximum, one-time cost 
that is depreciated over several years. Under the limited entry program 
that was implemented January 1, 1994, approximately 381 vessels are 
expected to qualify for initial issuance of a fishing permit with an 
endorsement for trawl gear. If every one of these vessels required a 
completely new net built by a manufacturer (as opposed to building it 
with existing mesh and crew labor), the total cost to the industry 
would be $1.1 to $2.3 million. These values greatly exceed any 
reasonable expectation of the impact on the trawl industry because it 
assumes: (1) Every vessel currently uses small mesh in the 
intermediate; (2) all vessels would purchase nets rather than doing any 
of the changes with existing labor and materials; and (3) all net 
replacement is due to the regulation rather than to normal wear and 
tear. However, to minimize costs to the industry, the Council 
recommended that changes to the trawl regulations be phased in over a 
6-month period, so that new gear could replace worn gear.
    By increasing mesh size in the intermediate, the proposed rule may 
reduce the catch, and thus dollars per hour that the trawl fishery 
produces. However, the codend mesh size is more critical than the mesh 
size forward of the codend. In the Dover sole/thornyhead/sablefish 
fishery (also called the DTS or deepwater complex), the most 
significant reduction in dollars per hour may come from the thornyhead 
contribution. However, reduced catch rates may be compensated for by 
making longer or more frequent tows.
    Gilling (entangling fish in the webbing), particularly of rockfish, 
may increase with larger mesh in the intermediate portion of the net, 
but gilled fish are expected to be usable for the most part. Increased 
time necessary to untangle gilled fish may be offset by decreased time 
sorting small and unmarketable fish from the catch. However, the 
decrease in sorting time seems most likely for flatfish species.
    The marking requirement for vertical hook-and-line gear relieves an 
unnecessary restriction, and could reduce the cost of purchasing new 
marking equipment by about half. The current regulation is estimated to 
cost a maximum of $147 per unit of gear, for a total of $735-$882 per 
vessel, assuming an average of five to six units of gear per vessel. 
This proposed rule would reduce the cost by as much as $80 per unit of 
gear, or a reduction of $400-$480 per vessel. However, because most 
vessels are in compliance with the current regulations, the initial 
cost of marking gear already has been incurred, and any savings would 
occur as additional gear is acquired. Because this change would relieve 
a restriction, the Council requested that, if this action were 
approved, it would be effective upon filing of the final rule with the 
Office of the Federal Register.
    Social impacts. As a whole, these proposed regulations are simpler 
than the current regulations, and would facilitate both enforcement and 
compliance. The economic impact of reduced catch rates would be borne 
most by individuals who circumvented the current codend mesh size 
regulations. Individuals who operate in accordance with current 
regulations are likely to notice little change in current catch rates.
    This proposed rule would not eliminate the need for trip limits or 
other management measures in the fishery, but it possibly could delay 
more restrictive late-season changes in trip limits if catch rates are 
not maintained by increased tow duration and frequency.
    No impacts on vessel safety are expected. There is a potential 
increased risk of collision with commercial vertical hook-and-line gear 
marked only with a single buoy if fishermen lose or leave their gear 
unattended, because visibility of the gear would be reduced. However, 
leaving such gear unattended would violate the proposed regulations 
because unattended fixed gear would still be subject to the more 
stringent marking requirements.

Classification

    The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, has initially 
determined that this action is consistent with the FMP and the national 
standards and other provisions of the Magnuson Act.
    The General Counsel of the Department of Commerce certified to the 
Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, 
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et 
seq. Approximately 381 groundfish trawl vessels were initially issued 
limited entry permits. This number has been reduced to 320 through 
combination of vessel permits. The proposed trawl regulations would 
directly affect an unknown portion of these entities. Even if every one 
of the trawl vessels in the limited entry fishery required a completely 
new net built by a manufacturer, the total cost to the industry would 
be $1.1 to $2.3 million. These values greatly exceed any reasonable 
expectation of the impact on the trawl industry because they assume 
three extreme conditions: (1) Every vessel currently uses small mesh in 
the intermediate; (2) all vessels would purchase nets rather than doing 
any of the changes with existing labor and materials; and (3) all net 
replacement is due to the regulation rather than to normal wear and 
tear. There is no record of the number of vessels using vertical hook-
and-line gear. This proposed rule would remove the expense of 
maintaining current gear marking requirements for closely tended gear, 
and thus relieves a regulatory burden for this sector of the industry. 
Thus, it is determined the proposed measures could affect a substantial 
number of entities, but would not cause significant economic impacts on 
the affected small entities. Therefore, an Initial Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) is not required.
    This rule has been determined to be not significant for the 
purposes of Executive Order 12866.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 663

    Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: August 3, 1994.
Gary Matlock,
Acting Assistant Administrator for Fisheries National Marine Fisheries 
Service.
    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 663 is 
proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 663--PACIFIC COAST GROUNDFISH FISHERY

    1. The authority citation for part 663 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    2. Section 663.2 is amended as follows:
    a. The definition of ``Commercial fishing'' is amended by 
redesignating paragraphs (a) and (b) as paragraphs (1) and (2) and the 
definition for ``Fishing gear'' is amended by redesignating paragraphs 
(a) through (w) as paragraphs (1) through (23) respectively.
    b. The definition for ``Fishing gear'' is amended by revising the 
newly redesignated paragraphs (1) through (3), (6), (14), (16), and 
(18) to read as follows:


Sec. 663.2   Definitions.

* * * * *
    Fishing gear:
    (1) Bobbin trawl means the same as a roller trawl, and is a type of 
bottom trawl.
    (2) Bottom trawl means a trawl in which the otter boards or the 
footrope of the net are in contact with the seabed. It includes roller 
(or bobbin) trawls and Danish and Scottish seine gear. It also includes 
pair trawls fished on the bottom. Any trawl not meeting the 
requirements for pelagic trawl at Sec. 663.22(b)(6) is a bottom trawl.
    (3) Chafing gear means webbing or other material attached to the 
codend of a trawl net to protect the codend from wear.
* * * * *
    (6) Double-bar mesh means two lengths of twine tied into a single 
knot.
* * * * *
    (14) Pelagic (midwater or off-bottom) trawl means a trawl in which 
the otter boards may be in contact with the seabed but the footrope of 
the net remains above the seabed. It includes pair trawls if fished in 
midwater. A pelagic trawl has no rollers or bobbins on the net.
* * * * *
    (16) Roller trawl (bobbin trawl) means a trawl with footropes 
equipped with rollers or bobbins made of wood, steel, rubber, plastic, 
or other hard material that keep the footrope above the seabed, thereby 
protecting the net. A roller trawl is a type of bottom trawl.
* * * * *
    (18) Single-walled codend means a codend constructed of a single 
wall of webbing knitted with single or double-bar mesh.
* * * * *
    3. In Sec. 663.22, paragraphs (a), (b)(2) through (b)(4), and (c) 
are revised; paragraph (b)(5) is removed; and paragraph (b)(6) is 
redesignated as paragraph (b)(5) and revised to read as follows:


Sec. 663.22  Gear Restrictions.

    (a) General. The following types of fishing gear are authorized, 
with the restrictions set forth in this section: trawl (bottom and 
pelagic), hook-and-line, longline, pot or trap, set net, trammel net, 
and spear.
    (b) Trawl gear. (1) * * *
    (2) Mesh size. Trawl nets may be used if they meet the minimum mesh 
sizes set forth below. The minimum sizes apply throughout the net. 
Minimum trawl mesh size requirements are met if a 20-gauge stainless 
steel wedge, 3.0 or 4.5 inches (7.6 or 11.4 cm) (depending on the gear 
being measured) less one thickness of the metal at the widest part, can 
be passed with only thumb pressure through at least 16 of 20 sets of 
two meshes each of wet mesh. 

                         Minimum Trawl Mesh Size                        
                             [in inches]\1\                             
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Subarea                       
   Trawl type    -------------------------------------------------------
                  Vancouver   Columbia    Eureka    Monterey  Conception
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bottom..........        4.5        4.5        4.5        4.5         4.5
Pelagic.........        3.0        3.0        3.0        3.0         3.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Metric conversion: 3.0 = 7.6 centimeters; 4.5 inches = 11.4          
  centimeters.                                                          

    (3) Chafing gear. Chafing gear may encircle no more than 50 percent 
of the net's circumference any place on the net. No section of chafing 
gear may be longer than 50 meshes of the net to which it is attached. 
The terminal end (the end farthest from the mouth of the net) of 
chafing gear must not be connected to the net. Chafing gear must be 
attached outside any riblines and restraining straps. There is no limit 
on the number of sections of chafing gear on a net.
    (4) Codends. Only single-walled codends may be used in any trawl. 
Double-walled codends are prohibited.
    (5) Pelagic trawls. Pelagic trawl nets must have unprotected 
footropes at the trawl mouth, and must not have rollers, bobbins, 
tires, wheels, rubber discs, or any similar device anywhere in the net. 
Sweeplines, including the bottom leg of the bridle, must be bare. 
Either bare ropes or mesh of 16-inch (40.6-cm) minimum mesh size must 
completely encircle the net for at least 20 feet (6.15 m) in length 
immediately behind the footrope or headrope of the net.
    (c) Fixed gear. (1) Fixed gear (longline, trap or pot, set net, and 
stationary hook-and-line gear, including commercial vertical hook-and-
line gear) must be:
    (i) Marked at the surface, at each terminal end, with a pole, flag, 
light, radar reflector, and a buoy except as provided in paragraph 
(c)(2) of this section; and
    (ii) Attended at least once every 7 days.
    (2) Commercial vertical hook-and-line gear that is closely tended 
may be marked only with a single buoy of sufficient size to float the 
gear. ``Closely tended'' means that a vessel is within visual sighting 
distance or within \1/4\ nautical mile (463 m) as determined by 
electronic navigational equipment, of its commercial vertical hook-and-
line gear.
    (3) A buoy used to mark fixed gear under paragraph (c)(1)(i) or (2) 
of this section must be:
    (i) marked in the manner required by applicable state law (at 
Washington Administrative Code, Chapter 220; Oregon Administrative Rule 
635; California Fish and Game Code, sections 7850 and 9029), or
    (ii) if no state requirement applies, marked permanently with the 
vessel documentation number issued by the U.S. Coast Guard, or, for an 
undocumented vessel, the vessel registration number issued by the 
state.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 94-19340 Filed 8-4-94; 10:41 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P