[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 17 (Monday, January 27, 2003)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 3819-3823]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-1784]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 660

[Docket No.; 021016235-3005-02; I.D. 092402E]
RIN 0648-AP87


Fisheries Off West Coast States and in the Western Pacific; 
Coastal Pelagic Species Fishery; Amendment 10

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS issues a regulation to implement Amendment 10 to the 
Coastal Pelagic Species (CPS) Fishery Management Plan (FMP), which was 
submitted by the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) for

[[Page 3820]]

review and approval by the Secretary of Commerce. Amendment 10 
addresses the two unrelated subjects of the transferability of limited 
entry permits and maximum sustainable yield (MSY) for market squid. 
Only the provisions regarding limited entry permits require regulatory 
action. The primary purpose of this final rule is to establish the 
procedures by which limited entry permits can be transferred to other 
vessels and/or individuals so that the holders of the permits have 
maximum flexibility in their fishing operations while the goals of the 
FMP are achieved.

DATES: Effective January 27, 2003, except for Sec.  660.512(h), which 
is effective February 26, 2003.

ADDRESSES: Copies of Amendment 10, which includes an environmental 
assessment/regulatory impact review, and determination of the impact on 
small businesses may be obtained from Donald O. McIssac, Executive 
Director, Pacific Fishery Management Council, 7700 NE Ambassador Place, 
Suite 200, Portland, OR 97220. Comments regarding the collection-of-
information requirements contained in this rule should be sent to 
Rodney R. McInnis, Acting Regional Administrator, Southwest Region, 
NMFS, 501 West Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802-4213, and 
to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB), Washington, DC 20503 (ATTN: NOAA Desk 
Officer).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Morgan, Sustainable Fisheries 
Division, NMFS, at 562-980-4036.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Council distributed a draft of Amendment 
10 for public review on April 22, 2002. At its June 2002 meeting, the 
Council reviewed written comments, received comments from its advisory 
bodies, and heard public comments. On October, 3, 2002, a notice of 
availability of Amendment 10 and the associated documents was published 
in the Federal Register (67 FR 62001). A proposed rule was published in 
the Federal Register on October 30, 2002 (67 FR 66103), requesting 
public comment. The comment period ended on December 16, 2002. Two 
letters were received. Amendment 10 was approved by NMFS on December 
30, 2002.

Background

    On June 10, 1999, Amendment 8 to the Northern Anchovy Fishery 
Management Plan, which was renamed the Coastal Pelagic Species Fishery 
Management Plan, was partially approved by the Secretary of Commerce. 
Two of the provisions of Amendment 8 were disapproved. However, these 
two provisions addressed matters required by the Magnuson-Stevens 
Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) to be 
included in all fishery management plans. As such, the Council was 
required to revisit these issues in subsequent actions. First, bycatch 
provisions of Amendment 8 were disapproved because they did not contain 
a standardized reporting methodology to assess the amount and type of 
bycatch in the fishery. Bycatch requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens 
Act were eventually addressed in Amendment 9, which was approved on 
March 22, 2001. Second, optimum yield for market squid (Loligo 
opalescens) was disapproved because Amendment 8 did not provide an 
estimate of MSY. The Council is addressing MSY through submission of 
Amendment 10.

Market Squid

    Various approaches to determine an MSY proxy for market squid have 
been attempted. With little knowledge of the biology of squid and 
inadequate data available, other than landings, results from all 
methods used to determine an or proxy for MSY proved to be ineffective 
for monitoring the resource. Amendment 10, which contains a description 
of these methods, examines such things as historical landings, the 
range of the species, and the manner in which the fishery is conducted.
    Additional data on squid became available from research conducted 
by the California Department of Fish and Game through a program 
implemented by State legislation establishing permit fees to fund squid 
research. With new information on growth, maturity, and fecundity, the 
Council implemented a scientific review, which resulted in the 
development of a proxy for MSY that came to be known as the egg 
escapement (EE) method. A discussion of the approach the Council used 
was published in the proposed rule and will not be repeated here.
    The EE method is based on a modeling approach that addresses the 
life history of the species, with a focus on the mortality and spawning 
rates of sexually mature females and is based on determining a 
sustainable level of egg escapement. A sustainable level of egg 
escapement can be practically interpreted as a level of reproductive 
(egg) escapement that is believed to be at or near a minimum level 
necessary to allow the population to maintain its level of abundance 
into the future, that is, allow for sustainable reproduction year after 
year.
    With the approval of Amendment 10, the FMP now uses the EE method 
to monitor the market squid fishery. The adoption of the EE method for 
this purpose does not require implementing rules because it sets a 
policy for monitoring the fishery and has no direct effect on the 
conduct of the fishery.

Capacity Goal

    Amendment 10 establishes a capacity goal for the fleet and sets 
conditions for the transfer of permits to maintain the capacity goal. 
The purpose of the capacity goal is to ensure that fishing capacity in 
the CPS limited entry fishery is in balance with resource availability. 
Measuring the actual harvesting capacity of a vessel and monitoring 
each vessel's capacity can be complicated because the amount of fish a 
vessel can carry depends on many factors; therefore, Amendment 10 uses 
an aggregate gross tonnage (GT) of 5,650.9 mt as a proxy for fleet 
capacity. The aggregate gross tonnage level of 5,650.9 mt results in a 
fleet that is larger than necessary solely to harvest available CPS; 
however, the CPS finfish fleet also relies on other fishing 
opportunities such as fishing for squid and tuna. The current fleet of 
65 vessels, which totals 5,650.9 mt GT, meets the necessity of 
controlling the size of the CPS fleet while taking in consideration the 
economic needs of the fishery. Estimated normal harvesting capacity for 
the current fleet, which was determined by reviewing historical average 
and maximum landings per trip, ranged from 60,000 mt to 111,000 mt per 
year. The physical harvesting capacity of the current fleet ranged from 
361,000 to 539,000 mt per year. Physical capacity is a technological or 
engineering measure of the maximum potential output per unit of time.

Permit Transfers

    As long as aggregate fleet GT is not above 5,933.5 mt (fleet GT 
plus 5 percent) limited entry permits can be transferred with the 
following restrictions: (1) Full transferability of permits only to 
vessels of comparable capacity (vessel GT +.10 (GT) or less), and (2) 
permits can be combined up to a greater level of capacity in cases 
where the vessel to which the permits would be transferred to is of 
greater harvesting capacity than the vessel from which the permit 
originated.
    NMFS will endorse each limited entry permit based on the currently 
permitted vessel's calculated GT as defined by the formula in 46 CFR 
69.209 for ship-shaped hulls. This formula is used by the U.S. Coast 
Guard (GT = 0.67 x length x breadth x depth/100). Records of length, 
breadth, and depth used for determining GT will be those recorded

[[Page 3821]]

on the vessel's Coast Guard documentation.
    The original permits and their respective endorsements will remain 
in effect for the lifetime of each permit, regardless of the GT of a 
vessel to which it was transferred. In cases where a permit is 
transferred to a vessel with a smaller GT, the original GT endorsement 
will remain, and excess GT cannot be split out from the original permit 
configuration and sold. In cases where two or more permits are 
transferred to a larger vessel, the larger vessel will hold the 
original permits and can fish for CPS finfish as long as the aggregate 
GT endorsements, including the 10 percent allowance, as defined by the 
formula for comparable capacity (vessel GT + .10 (GT) or less) adds up 
to or exceeds the new vessel's calculated GT. In the event that a 
vessel with multiple permits leaves the CPS limited entry program, the 
permits can be sold together or separately, but the original permit 
endorsement cannot be altered.
    To ensure manageability of the permit program and stability of the 
fleet, only one transfer per permit will be allowed during each 
calendar year. Permits can be used only on the vessel to which they 
were registered. Catch history will be tied to the vessel and not to 
the permits.

Maintaining the Capacity Goal

    When the upper threshold of aggregate fleet capacity plus 5 percent 
(5,933.5 mt) is reached, fleet capacity will be restored to the 
capacity goal (5,650.9 mt) by restricting conditions for permit 
transfer. The choice of 5 percent is a balance between allowing permit 
owners flexibility to improve their economic situation by modifying 
existing vessels or acquiring new vessels without leading to a fleet 
capacity that will take too long to return to the capacity goal. When 
the threshold of 5,933.5 mt is reached or exceeded, permits can only be 
transferred to vessels with equal or smaller GT, and the 10-percent 
vessel allowance will be removed. Restoring the 10 percent-allowance 
can be considered when total aggregate fleet capacity reaches the 
5,650.9 mt target.

Procedures for Issuing New Limited Entry Permits

    Based on changes in CPS finfish resources or market conditions, the 
Council may recommend to NMFS that new limited entry permits should be 
issued. If NMFS approves the recommendation, a notice will be published 
in the Federal Register describing the details of the recommendation. 
If new permits are issued, the qualifying criteria originally 
established in the FMP will be used for issuance. This will entail 
continuing down the list of vessels having landings during the 1993-97 
window period in order of decreasing window period landings from the 
original qualifying level of 100 mt. If no vessel meets the qualifying 
criteria of 100 mt, then the permit will be issued to the vessel with 
total landings nearest 100 mt during the qualifying period. New permits 
can be issued on either a temporary or permanent basis, depending on 
the circumstances surrounding the need for additional fleet capacity.

Comments and Responses

    Two letters were received. The comments therein focused primarily 
on the process used to issue new limited entry permits. Under Amendment 
10 and the proposed rule, the Regional Administrator would use the 
qualifying period of January 1, 1993, through November 5, 1997, and the 
same qualification of landing at least 100 mt during this period as 
described in Amendment 8 to the FMP. If no vessel meets the landing 
requirement, then the permit would be issued to the vessel with 
landings nearest 100 mt.
    Comment 1: The approach is arbitrary because (1) any gear that made 
the landing would be eligible, which could create a windfall for the 
qualifying vessel through transfer of the permit from a vessel that did 
not intend to fish CPS; (2) the procedure does not take into account 
section 301(a)(8) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, which requires that 
proposed actions provide for sustained participation of fishing 
communities and minimize the impact on fishing communities, in this 
case, the fishing community of San Diego; and (3) the status of the 
California market squid fishery and the CPS finfish fishery, which are 
limited by the geographical range of the limited entry regime and 
recognized as closely related economically by the FMP, were not taken 
into account.
    The commenter recommended that the inadequacies of Amendment 10 
described in the previous paragraph be corrected by the following:
    1. Issue permits to round-haul vessels that hold a market squid 
permit from the State of California. Amendment 10 recognizes the 
importance of squid to the CPS fishery, and some of these vessels that 
have participated in the CPS fishery before the qualifying period hold 
these permits.
    2. Include as criteria for a permit, provisions of a California law 
that requires eligibility for fishermen that can provide evidence 
showing participation as a commercial fisherman for 20 years and who 
were participants in the CPS fishery for at least one of those years.
    3. Include vessels that have a drift gill net shark and swordfish 
permit issued by the State of California.
    4. Include vessels that have a history of participation in the 
tropical tuna fishery and the owner of the vessel is a member of the 
San Diego fishing community.
    5. Include vessels that did not land 100 mt during the qualifying 
period.
    The proposed remedy would not contribute to overcapitalilzation 
because fewer than 10 vessels are likely to qualify. The remedy also 
would minimize the impact on the fishing community in San Diego. Some 
vessels have squid permits but do not have CPS limited entry permits. 
Vessels that lost fishing access to Mexico when the Magnuson-Stevens 
Act extended jurisdiction to highly migratory species entered the drift 
gill net fishery. Recognizing the importance of having a squid permit 
and a CPS limited entry permit, and implementing the California 
criteria of historical participation makes a more reasonable 
accommodation to the fishing community in San Diego.
    Response: The FMP does not specify the gear used for taking CPS 
because how the resource is harvested has never been an issue. 
Implementation of limited entry was expected to be beneficial to the 
economics of the fishery as a whole and may or may not be beneficial to 
any specific fisherman, because the value of permits is related to the 
condition of the resource and the prevailing markets for the harvest, 
both of which fluctuate over time. Nevertheless, limiting the number of 
harvesters tends to reduce individual risk. New permits would be issued 
only if the capacity of the fleet falls below the goal or the condition 
of the resource is such that new permits are warranted. Those 
individuals who participated in the fishery in the past but left the 
fishery and did not make the required landings during the window 
period, may qualify under the procedures of Amendment 10 if landings 
lower than 100 mt are considered. The Council decided to retain the 
current control date, window period, and level of landings required 
when issuing additional permits. This approach was adopted to be less 
disruptive in terms of displacing vessels from the fishery and reduces 
impacts on existing fishing patterns, and, therefore, on fishing 
communities.
    Through Amendment 8 NMFS closely examined the relationship between 
vessels harvesting CPS finfish and those

[[Page 3822]]

harvesting squid with respect to economic dependence. NMFS found that 
almost all of the originally permitted vessels also had squid permits 
from the State of California. Thus, NMFS chose not to issue permits to 
all holders of squid permits because the fleet would have been too 
large.
    Implementation of Amendment 10 will allow permits to be 
transferable to another individual or to another vessel. Permits will 
have a cost, but the cost of a permit is expected to reflect the value 
of the permit. Therefore, those individuals needing to improve their 
business opportunities through the purchase of a permit will be able to 
assess the value of making the purchase by considering future potential 
harvests and the prevailing market for permits.
    Comment 2: Amendment 10 does not present information as required 
under section 303(a)(4)(C) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act to provide data 
on the extent to which U.S. processors, on an annual basis, will 
process CPS landed by the CPS fleet.
    Response: Harvesting capacity not processing capacity as it relates 
to overcapitalization is the subject of Amendment 10. Nevertheless, the 
FMP assumed that landings and processing capacity would increase as the 
biomass increased. Processing capacity has increased, and it continues 
to increase.
    Comment 3: Amendment 10 does not discuss an option based on 
grandfathered permits as provided in California law.
    Response: California law requires that any California fisherman 
with 20 years of participating in any fishery and 1 year in the fishery 
slated for limited entry be given a preference. While experience was 
considered in Amendment 10, only participation in the CPS fishery was 
considered in an effort to determine those individuals that depend on 
CPS and to prevent overcapitalization.
    Comment 4: The provision to issue new permits is not fair and 
equitable. Amendment 10 requires new permits to be issued from the 
original list of vessels. The list of potentially qualifying vessels 
was developed under Amendment 8, before a fishery began off Oregon and 
Washington, which is a bias toward California fishermen. If fisheries 
off Oregon and Washington had existed when Amendment 8 was implemented, 
many Oregon and Washington fishermen would have received a permit.
    Response: The decision was made by the Council to rely on the 
existing window period and required landings, which continues the 
Council's preference for historical participation. Before the FMP was 
implemented, some fishermen from other states entered the squid 
fishery, landed CPS, and qualified for a limited entry permit, an 
option open to anyone, regardless of state residency. New entrants in 
the fishery who have benefitted from participating in the open access 
fishery may also enter the limited entry fishery by purchasing a permit 
under the rules established by Amendment 10.

Classification

    The Administrator, Southwest Region, NMFS, determined that the FMP 
Amendment 10 is necessary for the conservation and management of the 
coastal pelagic species fishery and that it is consistent with the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.
    Because the rule relieves a restriction on the sale to other 
individuals and/or transfer to other vessels of limited entry permits, 
it is not necessary to delay the effective date of this final rule for 
30 days under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1), except for Sec.  660.512(h). This 
rule will give individuals flexibility in managing their business 
affairs by allowing them to invest in the fishery through the purchase 
of a permit or to sell a permit on the open market.
    This final rule has been determined to be not significant for the 
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
    The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce 
certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration that the proposed rule for this action would not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
No comments were received regarding this certification. However, 
several comments addressed the economic impact of the rule. Responses 
to these comments are presented above. None of these comments resulted 
in a change to the determination that the rule would not have a 
significant economic impact. As a result, a regulatory flexibility 
analysis was not prepared.
    This final rule contains a collection-of-information requirement 
subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) and which has been 
approved by OMB under control number 0648-0204. Public reporting burden 
for an application for transfer of a limited entry permit is estimated 
to average 30 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing 
instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and 
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the 
collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden 
estimate, or any other aspect of this data collection, including 
suggestions for reducing the burden, to NMFS (See ADDRESSES) and to OMB 
at the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Washington, 
D.C. 20503 (Attention: NOAA Desk Officer).
    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is 
required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for 
failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the 
requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays 
a currently valid OMB control number.
    There have been no changes to the regulatory text in the proposed 
rule.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 660

    Administrative practice and procedure, American Samoa, Fisheries, 
Fishing, Guam, Hawaiian Natives, Indians, Northern Mariana Islands, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: January 21, 2003.
Rebecca Lent,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS amends 50 CFR part 
660 as follows:

PART 660--FISHERIES OFF WEST COAST STATES AND IN THE WESTERN 
PACIFIC

    1. The authority citation for part 660 continues to read as 
follows:

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

    2. In Sec.  660.502, definitions for ``comparable capacity'', and 
``gross tonnage'' are added, in alphabetical order, to read as follows:


Sec.  660.502  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Comparable capacity means gross tonnage plus 10 percent of the 
vessel's calculated gross tonnage.
* * * * *
    Gross tonnage (GT) means gross tonnage as determined by the formula 
in 46 CFR 69.209(a) for a vessel not designed for sailing (.67 x length 
x breadth x depth/100). A vessel's length, breadth, and depth are those 
specified on the vessel's certificate of documentation issued by the 
U.S. Coast Guard or State.
* * * * *

    3. In Sec.  660.512, a new paragraph (h) is added to read as 
follows:


Sec.  660.512  Limited entry fishery.

* * * * *
    (h) Issuance of new permits. (1) When the aggregate gross tonnage 
of all vessels participating in the limited entry fishery

[[Page 3823]]

declines below 5,650.9 metric tons (mt), the Council will review the 
status of the fishery, taking into consideration:
    (i) The changes in gross tonnage that have and are likely to occur 
in the transfer of limited entry permits;
    (ii) The actual harvesting capacity as experienced in the current 
fishery in comparison to the capacity goal;
    (iii) Comments of the CPSMT;
    (iv) Any other relevant factors related to maintaining the capacity 
goal.
    (2) Following its review, the Council will recommend to NMFS 
whether additional permit(s) should be issued and if the new permit(s) 
should be temporary or permanent. The issuance of new permit(s) shall 
be based on the following:
    (i) The qualifying criteria in paragraph (b) of this section, but 
vessels that were issued a permit before December 31, 2000, are not 
eligible.
    (ii) If no vessel meets the qualifying criteria in paragraph (b), 
then the permit(s) will be issued to the vessel(s) with total landings 
nearest 100 mt during the qualifying period of paragraph (b).
    (iii) No vessel will be issued a permit under this paragraph (h) 
that is currently registered for use with a permit.
    (3) The Regional Administrator will review the Council's 
recommendation and determine whether issuing additional permit(s) is 
consistent with the FMP and with paragraph (h)(2) of this section. If 
issuing additional permit(s) is appropriate, the Regional Administrator 
will:
    (i) Issue the appropriate number of permits consistent with the 
Council's recommendation; and
    (ii) Publish a document in the Federal Register notifying the 
public that new permits or a new permit has been issued, the conditions 
attached to any permit, and the reasons for the action.

    4. Section 660.514 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  660.514  Transferability.

    (a) General. (1) The SFD will process applications for transferring 
limited entry permits to a different owner and/or to a different vessel 
according to this section.
    (2) After January 27, 2003, the SFD will issue a limited entry 
permit to the owner of each vessel permitted to participate in the 
limited entry fishery for CPS. This permit will replace the existing 
permit and will include the gross tonnage of the vessel, which will 
constitute an endorsement for that vessel for the purpose of regulating 
the transfer of limited entry permits.
    (b) Criteria. (1) When the aggregate gross tonnage of all vessels 
participating the limited entry fishery is at or below 5,650.9 mt, a 
permit may be transferred to a different owner or to a different vessel 
in the following circumstances only:
    (i) A permit may be transferred to a vessel without a permit if the 
vessel without a permit has a comparable capacity to the capacity on 
the permit or is less than comparable capacity on the permit.
    (ii) When a permit is transferred to a vessel without a permit that 
has less gross tonnage than that of the permitted vessel, the excess 
gross tonnage may not be separated from the permit and applied to a 
second vessel.
    (iii) A permit may be transferred to a vessel without a permit that 
is of greater than comparable capacity only if two or more permits are 
transferred to the vessel without a permit to equal the gross tonnage 
of the vessel. The number of permits required will be determined by 
adding together the comparable capacity of all permits being 
transferred. Any gross tonnage in excess of that needed for a vessel 
remains with the permit.
    (2) When a vessel with multiple permits leaves the fishery, the 
permits may be sold separately and applied to other vessels according 
to the criteria in this section.
    (c) Stipulations. (1) The gross tonnage endorsement of a permit is 
integral to the permit for the duration of the permit, regardless of 
the gross tonnage of any vessel to which the permit is transferred.
    (2) Permits may be used only on the vessel for which they are 
registered by the SFD. All permits that authorize a vessel to operate 
in the limited entry fishery must be on board the vessel during any 
fishing trip on which CPS is harvested or is on board.
    (3) A permit may be transferred only once during a calendar year.
    (d) Vessel alterations. (1) A permitted vessel's length, breadth, 
or depth may be altered to increase the gross tonnage of the vessel 
only if the aggregate gross tonnage of all vessels participating in the 
limited entry fishery equals, or is below 5,650.9 mt, and only under 
the following conditions:
    (i) The gross tonnage of the altered vessel, calculated according 
to the formula in 46 CFR 69.209(a), does not exceed 110 percent of the 
vessel's original gross tonnage endorsement, and
    (ii) A new certificate of documentation is obtained from the U.S. 
Coast Guard or State. Modifications exceeding 110 percent of the 
vessel's gross tonnage endorsement will require registration of the 
vessel under an additional permit or permits or under a permit with a 
sufficient gross tonnage endorsement.
    (2) A copy of the certificate of documentation indicating changes 
in length, depth, or breadth must be provided to the SFD.
    (3) The revised gross tonnage will not be valid as an endorsement 
until a revised permit is issued by the SFD.
    (e) Applications. (1) All requests for the transfer of a limited 
entry permit will be made to the SFD in writing and shall contain the 
following information:
    (i) Name, address, and phone number of the owner of the permitted 
vessel.
    (ii) Name of the permitted vessel and documentation number of the 
vessel.
    (iii) Name, address, and phone number of the owner of the vessel to 
which the permit is to be transferred.
    (iv) Name and documentation number of the vessel to which the 
permit is to be transferred.
    (v) Signature(s) of the owner(s) of the vessels participating in 
the transfer.
    (vi) Any other information that the SFD may request.
    (2) No permit transfer is effective until the transfer has been 
authorized by the SFD.
    (f) Capacity reduction. (1) When the aggregate gross tonnage of the 
limited entry fleet reaches 5,933.5 mt, a permit may be transferred to 
a vessel without a permit only if the vessel without a permit is of the 
same or less gross tonnage.
    (2) When the aggregate gross tonnage of the limited entry fleet 
reaches 5,933.5 mt, alterations in the length, depth, or breadth of a 
permitted vessel may not result in an increase in the gross tonnage of 
the vessel.
[FR Doc. 03-1784 Filed 1-24-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S