[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 29 (Monday, February 12, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 5335-5340]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-2686]



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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

15 CFR Part 922

[Docket No. 950222055-5294-02]


Regulation To Prohibit the Attraction of White Sharks in the 
Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary; Clarification of Exception To 
Discharge Prohibition

AGENCY: Sanctuaries and Reserves Division (SRD), Office of Ocean and 
Coastal Resource Management (OCRM), National Ocean Service (NOS), 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of 
Commerce (DOC).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration proposes 
to amend the regulations governing the Monterey Bay National Marine 
Sanctuary (MBNMS or Sanctuary) to prohibit the attraction of white 
sharks in the nearshore (seaward to three miles) areas of the 
Sanctuary. This proposed rule responds to the comments received in 
response to an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on the subject of 
attracting sharks in the Sanctuary. The proposed prohibition is to 
ensure that Sanctuary resources and qualities are not adversely 
impacted and to avoid conflicts among various users of the Sanctuary. 
The proposed rule would also clarify the ``traditional fishing'' 
exemption to the discharge prohibition in the existing regulations, and 
add definitions of ``fishing'' and ``traditional fishing.''

DATES: Comments must be received by March 13, 1996. A public hearing on 
this proposed rule will be held at a time and location which will be 
published in a separate document.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent to Ed Ueber, Sanctuary Manager, Gulf 
of the Farallones and northern portion of the Monterey Bay National 
Marine 

[[Page 5336]]
Sanctuaries, Ft. Mason, Building 201, San Francisco, California 94123, 
or Elizabeth Moore, Sanctuaries and Reserves Division, National Oceanic 
and Atmospheric Administration, 1305 East West Highway, SSMC4, 12th 
Floor, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910. Comments received will be 
available for public inspection at both addresses.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ed Ueber at (415) 556-3509 or 
Elizabeth Moore at (301) 713-3141.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    In recognition of the national significance of the unique marine 
environment centered around Monterey Bay, California, the MBNMS was 
designated on September 18, 1992. SRD issued final regulations, 
effective January 1, 1993, to implement the Sanctuary designation (15 
CFR Part 922 Subpart M; previously cited as 15 CFR Part 944). The MBNMS 
regulations at 15 CFR 922.132(a) prohibit a relatively narrow range of 
activities to protect Sanctuary resources and qualities.
    In January 1994, SRD became aware that chum was being used to 
attract white sharks for viewing by SCUBA divers while in underwater 
cages. This activity occurred in the nearshore area off of Ano Nuevo in 
the MBNMS during the time of year white sharks come to feed. SRD 
received expressions of concern over this activity and inquiries as to 
whether attracting sharks for viewing and other purposes is allowed in 
the MBNMS. NOAA's Sanctuaries and Reserves Division (SRD), with 
assistance from the MBNMS Advisory Council, and a number of interested 
parties, identified a number of concerns regarding the subject of 
attracting white sharks within the MBNMS. NOAA subsequently issued an 
advance notice of proposed rulemaking on this issue to invite 
submission of written information, advice, recommendations and other 
comments. The following concerns have been identified throughout NOAA's 
review of this issued: (1) Behavioral changes in the attracted species 
(e.g., feeding and migration); (2) increased risk of attack to other 
Sanctuary users (e.g., surfers, windsurfers, and swimmers), increased 
user conflicts in the area of the activity, and potential health 
hazards of the activity; and (3) adverse impacts to other Sanctuary 
resources and qualities (e.g., disruption of the ecosystem, aesthetic 
impacts). While California state law makes it unlawful to directly take 
(e.g., catch, capture, or kill) white sharks in state waters, it does 
not address attraction of white sharks. Nor does any Federal law or 
regulation address attracting white sharks in the waters off 
California.
    There is currently no MBNMS regulation specifically addressing 
attracting white sharks in the MBNMS. There is a general regulatory 
prohibition against discharging or depositing any material or other 
matter in the Sanctuary (15 CFR 922.132(a) (2)). The discharge and 
deposit prohibition contains an exception for, inter alia, the 
discharge or deposit of ``fish, fish parts, chumming materials or bait 
used in or resulting from traditional fishing operations in the 
Sanctuary.'' While fishing activities in the Sanctuary are subject to 
various Federal and state regulations, traditional fishing activities 
are not regulated as part of the Sanctuary regulatory regime. Sanctuary 
regulations that could indirectly restrict traditional fishing 
operations were specifically crafted to avoid doing so. Thus, while 
fishing vessels are subject to the general regulatory prohibition 
against discharging or depositing any material or other matter in the 
Sanctuary, the exception for the discharge or deposit of ``fish, fish 
parts, chumming materials or bait used in or resulting from traditional 
fishing operations in the Sanctuary'' was designed to prevent the 
prohibition from indirectly restricting the conduct of traditional 
fishing operations. However, it was not intended to allow the discharge 
or deposit of ``fish, fish parts, chumming materials or bait'' at any 
time or in conjunction with any activity, as long as the discharge or 
deposit is of the same material ``used in or resulting from'' 
traditional fishing operations in the Sanctuary. Rather, it was 
intended solely to allow such discharges or deposits in the course of 
traditional fishing operations. Accordingly, NOAA proposes to amend 
this exception to make it explicitly clear that it applies only to such 
discharges or deposits in the conduct of traditional fishing 
activities.
    On February 28, 1995, SRD issued an Advance Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (ANPR; 60 FR 10812), an optional step in the rulemaking 
process, to inform the public that the MBNMS was considering 
restricting or prohibiting attracting sharks within the Sanctuary and 
to invite submission of written information, advice, recommendations 
and other comments. The comment period for the ANPR ended on April 14, 
1995. SRD received 302 letters and several petitions. Further, SRD held 
a public hearing in Santa Cruz, California on March 22, 1995, where 35 
oral comments were received. Most comments (over 90%) favored 
restricting or prohibiting chumming for or otherwise attracting white 
sharks in some fashion in the MBNMS.
    Based on available information, including that received in response 
to the ANPR, SRD is proposing to prohibit attracting white sharks in 
the nearshore areas of the MBNMS.

II. Comments and Responses

    The following is a summary of comments received on the ANPR and 
NOAA's responses.
    (1) Comment: White sharks are already present in the Ano Nuevo 
region and other areas of the Sanctuary and shark attraction activities 
make no difference to their presence.
    Response: NOAA agrees that white sharks are present in the Ano 
Nuevo region and other nearshore areas of the MBNMS in the autumn and 
winter seasons. However, NOAA is concerned that artificial (i.e., human 
induced) attraction activities may draw more white sharks to a specific 
location than might be present naturally and also cause them to remain 
in the area longer. Researchers have documented that chumming can draw 
sharks from up to 5 km (3.1 miles) away and cause them to remain up to 
twelve hours after chumming has ceased.
    (2) Comment: Artifically attracting white sharks causes short-term 
behavioral changes in the attracted or associated species, and may 
cause long-term changes.
    Response: NOAA agrees. Research clearly supports that using 
attractants (e.g., chum) causes short-term behavioral changes in white 
sharks. This is further evidence by the fact that artificial shark 
attraction methods have been successful in bringing sharks into a 
targeted area for divers in cages to view. Both direct and indirect 
(e.g., more white sharks remain in a particular area longer; a 
situation which could alter predator-prey relationships) behavioral 
changes can result from attracting white sharks in nearshore waters of 
the Sanctuary. In addition, while few studies have been conducted on 
the long-term impacts of artificial attraction on white sharks, 
scientific studies and observations indicate that using human 
manipulation to attract other species of wild organisms has resulted in 
behavioral changes.
    A report prepared by the Research Activity Panel (RAP Report), a 
working group of the Sanctuary Advisory Council, indicates that sharks 
are known to be drawn to a specific area based on sensory (hearing and 
olfactory) changes in their environment. Some sharks have been trained 
to respond to 

[[Page 5337]]
both of these stimuli, but the success of that training depends on 
sufficient frequency. Evidence strongly indicates white shark affinity 
to the Farallon Islands and Ano Nuevo Island areas due to the frequency 
that they are found in these areas and the continued seasonality of 
their use of these areas. It has been found that individual white 
sharks often feed at the same location at similar times during 
successive years.
    It has also been found that white sharks at Dangerous Reef in 
Southern Australia show a clear tendency to revisit the places where 
they were previously observed, suggesting a relatively high degree of 
site attachment. The white sharks exhibited an ``island patrolling'' 
pattern which may represent a home-ranging pattern. Shark feeding 
behavior seems to be indiscriminate; white sharks may take learned 
``prey-shaped'' items as long as the target ``matches'' a known prey 
item (e.g., a surfer lying prone on a surfboard has a silhouette 
similar to a seal). Other findings from studies at Dangerous Reef 
suggest that white sharks select their prey by shape. However, at the 
Farallon Islands, it has been documented that white sharks select prey 
of various shapes and sizes.
    The RAP Report found that sharks have been observed to alter their 
feeding behavior based on external clues (e.g., learned behavior). The 
Fisheries Division of the South Australia Department of Primary 
Industries has recommended that legislation be enacted to prohibit 
chumming at Dangerous Reef because of changes in the white shark's 
behavior resulting from chumming activities. Moreover, the Great 
Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (Authority) has a policy that 
permits will not be issued for the feeding or attracting of sharks, 
identifying reasons similar to those NOAA has regarding its proposal to 
prohibit attraction of white sharks in the nearshore areas of the 
Sanctuary, including change in behavior caused by the activity.
    The California legislature enacted a law prohibiting the direct 
take of white sharks in California waters due to their importance to 
the marine ecosystem. Further, research indicates that the California 
population of white sharks is small, that the white sharks have low 
reproductive rates, and that they have a slow rate of growth to 
maturity. Consequently, any disruption to the species can have a 
profound long-term adverse impact. This was evidenced in 1982, when a 
fisherman killed four adult white sharks off of the Farallon Islands. 
Researchers documented a significant decline in the occurrence of white 
sharks attacks on prey species (e.g., seals and sea lions) in that area 
between 1983-1985. This is significant because research indicates that 
white shark predation takes approximately 8-10% of the local elephant 
seal populations and an unknown percentage of California sea lion 
populations; this is enough of a predation rate to maintain a natural 
balance in fish and seabird populations.
    Concern about the feeding of or attracting of other species of wild 
organisms has been addressed in other areas. Dolphin-feeding cruises in 
the Gulf of Mexico is one example of the use of attractants that has 
been determined to cause significant negative behavioral changes in 
marine mammals. NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) banned 
dolphin-feeding cruises in 1991 based on the scientific risks to both 
dolphins and humans. The ban was imposed based on evidence that feeding 
cruises exposed wild animals to disease and physical danger, and could 
alter their migratory and feeding behavior. The U.S. Court of Appeals 
for the Fifth Circuit upheld the ban in 1993, Strong v. U.S., 5 F.3d 
905 (5th Cir. 1993). the Court agreed with NMFS that scientific 
evidence supported that feeding activities disturbs normal behavior 
and, therefore, it was reasonable for the agency to restrict or 
prohibit the feeding of wild dolphins.
    Other changes in animal behavior, resulting from people altering 
the natural feeding methods or locations, have been documented, 
including changes in prey items, location of feeding, and changes in 
behavioral patterns. Examples include feeding of bison in Yellowstone 
National Park, feeding of bear and deer in Parks, polar bears at 
Churchill, Canada, and feeding of fish in Hawaii. In all cases, the 
ensuing behavioral changes forced regulators to prohibit feeding 
activities to protect the animals and the people feeding them. In the 
Hawaii example, the feeding resulted in increases in selected fish 
species and thus affected natural community structure on the reefs. 
While not directly applicable to white sharks, these examples show that 
longer-term behavioral changes can and do result from using human-
manipulated means to attract (in these instances, feed) wild organisms.
    (3) Comment: Artificially attracting white sharks has adverse 
impacts on Sanctuary resources in general.
    Response: NOAA agrees that the potential exists to cause harm to 
Sanctuary resources and qualities from white shark attraction 
activities. Altering white shark behavior can result in disruption of 
the local population and the associated ecosystem. Further, attraction 
of white sharks in nearshore areas can result in adverse impacts to the 
aesthetic and recreational qualities for which the Sanctuary was 
designated.
    (4) Comment: Chum material is composed of the same natural products 
already present in the waters and, therefore, will have no adverse 
impacts.
    Response: NOAA disagrees. While chum has traditionally been 
documented to consist of live fish, fish blocks, and fish blood, there 
have been some instances where the use of pinniped parts, tuna oil, 
sheep parts and blood, pig parts and blood, and horse parts and blood 
have been used to take sharks and, in a few instances, to attract 
sharks for photography and viewing by caged divers (especially white 
sharks). It has been suggested that chum, especially non-marine chum, 
could act as a vector for potentially harmful bacteria and viruses to 
both marine mammals and humans. Regardless of the content of the chum 
or type of attractant, however, SRD has concerns about the conduct of 
activities to attract white sharks in the nearshore areas of the 
Sanctuary due to the resulting change in behavior of the white shark, 
the user conflict created by the activity, and impact to associated 
Sanctuary resources and qualities (e.g., ecological, aesthetic, 
recreational).
    (5) Comment: Methods other than chumming have been used to attract 
sharks, and therefore, need also to be considered in the rulemaking.
    Response: NOAA agrees. It has been reported to NOAA that some 
researchers and commercial entrepreneurs have experimented (with some 
success) using sound as a means of artificially attracting sharks. 
Other researchers have also experimented with electrical fields and 
visual cues as a means of attracting sharks. While such methods may 
reduce the adverse aesthetic impacts (e.g., a slick produced by 
chumming), and eliminate any risk of introduction of pathogens into the 
marine environment, other risks created by artificially attracting 
white sharks in nearshore areas remain (e.g., behavior modification and 
user conflict). Therefore, NOAA believes that its regulation must be 
broad enough to encompass means of attraction other than the use of 
chum.
    (6) Comment: Artificially attracting sharks in nearshore areas 
creates a risk to other users of those areas.
    Response: NOAA agrees. NOAA considers that even a single instance 
of white shark attraction conducted near an area where other people are 
recreating in the water can increase the 

[[Page 5338]]
risk of harm to those individuals from white shark attack. While the 
exact potential for increased risk is difficult to assess, and may be 
an area for further research, most experts on shark biology agree that 
enhanced risk is probable where attraction is occurring. The American 
Elasmobranch Society, whose members include professional researchers 
studying sharks and rays, conducted a survey of its members in 1994 
which included questions on shark baiting and the protection of sharks. 
One of the questions asked was ``In regard to shark-diving operations 
which involve regular baiting, is there a cause for concern (re: shark 
attack) if such shark diving operations are conducted relatively close 
to bathing or surfing beaches?'' The response resulted in 46 percent 
yes, 48 percent it depends, and 5 percent no answer. The Great Barrier 
Marine Park Authority also cited risks to other users as one of the 
reasons it adopted a policy not to issue permits for the feeding or 
attracting of sharks. The Authority indicated that if the policy had 
not been adopted, then shark attracting activities would have been 
prohibited through regulation.
    Therefore, while people that spend time in the water in areas near 
those known to be inhabited by white sharks are exposed to the 
possibility of dangerous interactions, the use of attractants in areas 
frequented by people may increase the likelihood of these interactions.
    (7) Comment: Anyone who surfs or dives near areas with high 
concentrations of white sharks such as Ano Nuevo is doing so in a 
dangerous environment to begin with, and attracting white sharks will 
not make it any more dangerous.
    Response: NOAA recognizes that nearshare areas such as Ano Nuevo 
have a higher incidence of white shark attacks than other areas of the 
coast. As discussed previously, however, NOAA believes that 
artificially attracting white sharks has the potential to increase the 
threat beyond that which may naturally exist within a given area.
    (8) Comment: Artificial attraction of white sharks disrupts 
established recreation and human use patterns and is therefore an 
incompatible use.
    Response: NOAA agrees. The use of attractants such as chum to 
attract white sharks in the nearshore areas of the Sanctuary adversely 
impacts the aesthetic and recreational qualities for which, in part, 
the Sanctuary was designed, and creates a conflict among other users of 
the area. For example, regardless of the method used to attract white 
sharks, users of the nearshore areas are subject to greater potential 
risk of harm as a result of the conduct of this activity. Further, the 
chum slick may cause not only a potential health hazard, but also 
adversely impacts the aesthetics of the area. Consequently, NOAA has 
determined that white shark attraction in the nearshore areas of the 
Sanctuary is generally incompatible with other uses of these areas.
    (9) Comment: Exposure to white sharks through cage diving promotes 
better conservation of sharks in general and improves the public's 
attitude towards (and perception of) sharks.
    Response: NOAA does not believe that attracting white sharks for 
viewing purposes without an associated, permitted research protocol 
provides a public benefit for the species, the participants, or other 
Sanctuary resources or qualities. NOAA also believes promotion of shark 
conservation is effectively addressed, in part, by retaining some 
sharks in aquaria for viewing. Within the area of the MBNMS, two 
aquaria exist (Steinhart Aquarium in San Francisco and the Monterey Bay 
Aquarium in Monterey), both of which are reowned for their skill and 
research in captive shark husbandry. Therefore, sufficient opportunity 
exists for members of the public who wish to view live sharks. SRD 
recognizes that there are few, if any, white sharks in capacity. For 
individuals that wish to observe live white sharks, therefore, one of 
the only ways to do so is to observe them in their natural environment. 
The regulation SRD is proposing does not restrict persons from SCUBA 
diving using shark cages in the Sanctuary. The regulation prohibits 
only the use of attractants that can artificially alter white shark 
behavior, create user conflict, and adversely impact other Sanctuary 
resources and qualities. This is the primary reason the proposed 
regulation is tailored specifically to attraction, and is not a broader 
prohibition against the ``taking'' (broadly defined in the existing 
Sanctuary regulations) of white sharks that could encompass non-
attraction viewing.
    (10) Comment: Artficial shark attraction is the only viable means 
for viewing white sharks in the wild. If a regulatory ban is 
promulgated, it would mean the end of commercial white shark viewing in 
the Sanctuary.
    Response: NOAA agrees that white sharks may essentially only be 
seen live in the wild. However, there are other means by which the 
majority of the non-diving public can learn about white sharks (e.g., 
research and educational media). While banning white shark attraction 
in nearshore areas of the Sanctuary would impact commercial white shark 
viewing activities, NOAA believes that in assessing the potential risks 
to the Sanctuary resources and qualities, and to Sanctuary users, such 
a restriction is necessary. Further, by restricting only attraction of 
white sharks in the nearshore areas, NOAA believes the regulation is 
reasonable in relation to the risks and concerns created by the 
activity. While a prohibition of white shark attraction in the 
nearshore areas of the Sanctuary would impact commercial shark 
attraction operations, the number of commercial operators presently 
engaging in this activity is small. Further, white shark attraction is 
not likely the sole source of business for such commercial operators 
because white sharks only inhabit the nearshore areas during the fall-
winter season. Moreover, as discussed in the previous response, 
commercial operators would not be prohibited from bringing divers to 
dive in cages to observe white sharks in their natural state without 
the use of attractants. Finally, many of the concerns about the impact 
of attracting white sharks in the nearshore areas do not appear to 
apply in deeper waters outside three miles where other species of shark 
(e.g., blue) are found because: other species of shark appear to not be 
as susceptible as white sharks to disruption from adverse impacts; and 
white sharks, their prey species, and people are not localized or 
concentrated outside nearshore waters of the MBNMS.
    (11) Comment: Shark chumming has been taking place in the Monterey 
Bay area for quite some time, and should therefore be considered a 
``traditional fishing'' method.
    Response: NOAA disagrees. There is evidence that a number of 
fisheries, including certain shark fisheries, used chumming methods for 
at least the past twenty years, though not in any sustained or 
continuous fashion. However, the white shark attraction activities 
conducted in the nearshore areas for recreational purposes are not 
traditional fishing operations. In fact, such activities are not any 
type of fishing operation. Moreover, white sharks have no significant 
commercial value, and there is no and there never has been a commercial 
white shark fishery in the Monterey Bay area waters. In addition, 
California state law now generally prohibits fishing for, or retention 
of, white sharks within California waters. NOAA believes that a 
regulation which would effectively prohibit the attraction of white 
sharks is a logical extension of, and consistent with, the State law.

[[Page 5339]]

    (12) Comment: The definition of traditional fishing needs to be 
clarified.
    Response: NOAA agrees. The term was not defined in the existing 
regulations and NOAA is proposing to amend the regulations to define 
the term.
    (13) Comment: If a ban on white shark attraction is put in place, 
legitimate scientific research on white sharks using artificial 
attraction will not be allowed in the sanctuary.
    Response: The MBNMS regulations provide that permits may be issued 
to conduct certain activities, including those that will further 
research related to Sanctuary resources and qualities. In assessing 
whether to issue a research permit, the MBNMS/SRD considers a number of 
factors including: the end value of the activity; the professional 
qualifications and financial ability of the applicant as related to the 
proposed activity; the duration of the activity and duration of its 
effects; and the appropriateness of the methods and procedures proposed 
by the applicant for the conduct of the activity. Further, in order to 
issue a permit, the MBNMS/SRD must find that the activity will have 
only negligible short-term effects on Sanctuary resources and 
qualities. Sections 922.48 and 922.133 of 15 CFR provide the 
application procedures and issuance criteria for Sanctuary permits. 
Under 15 CFR 922.49 and 922.134, NOAA may also authorize a research 
permit issued by the California Department of Fish and Game.
    Should SRD allow, via permit or authorization, the conduct of white 
shark attraction for legitimate scientific research, stringent 
conditions will be required to protect Sanctuary resources and 
qualities and to minimize user conflict. For example, SRF would likely 
require that any physical attractants be free of infectious pathogens 
and be restricted to naturally occurring oceanic substances (e.g., no 
parts of terrestrial organisms), and be limited to no more than 
necessary to conduct the research; that the researcher fly the 
internationally designated danger flag, the U or Uniform Flag, along 
with the NOAA research flag while conducting research activities; that 
the researcher make radio contact with any vessel coming within the 
vicinity of the activity; and that the researcher provide local public 
notice prior to the conduct of research activities.
    (14) Comment: A restriction or prohibition against attracting white 
sharks should not be Sanctuary-wide, but rather should apply only to 
certain areas.
    Response: NOAA agrees. The concerns raised by this activity are 
unique to nearshore areas due to the combined concentration of white 
sharks, associated species (e.g., pinnipeds), and people who also use 
and enjoy the nearshore areas of the Sanctuary. These concerns are not 
present in offshore areas of the MBNMS where this combination of 
factors does not exist. Consequently, NOAA believes that by prohibiting 
the attraction of white sharks within three miles from the coast (i.e., 
state waters; 16% of the Sanctuary), the identified concerns and risks 
will be fully addressed.

III. Summary of Regulations

    Three amendments to the MBNMS regulations are proposed in this 
rulemaking.

1. Attraction of White Sharks

    The first amendment is the addition to 15 CFR 922.132(a) of a 
prohibition against attracting, or attempting to attract, any white 
shark in California State waters (three miles seaward of mean high 
tide) in the Sanctuary. Section 922.131 would also be amended by adding 
a definition of ``attract or attracting,'' defined as the conduct of 
any activity that lures by using food, bait, chum or any other means. 
As discussed above in the response to comments on the ANPR, this 
regulation is necessary to protect the white shark and other Sanctuary 
resources (e.g., pinnipeds); to minimize user conflict in the nearshore 
areas of the Sanctuary; and to protect the ecological, aesthetic, and 
recreational qualities of the Sanctuary. Concentration of white sharks, 
associated species, and people make nearshore areas of the Sanctuary 
uniquely susceptible to adverse impacts from attracting white sharks in 
such areas. The proposed regulation is narrowly tailored to attraction 
of white sharks in order to complement existing California law that 
prohibits the direct take of white sharks in California waters, and so 
as not to prohibit divers from viewing white sharks in their natural 
state without the use of attractants.

2. Discharge Regulations

    Section 922.132(a)(2)(i) prohibits the discharging or depositing, 
from within the boundary of the Sanctuary, any material or other 
matter. Section 922.132(a)(2)(ii) prohibits the discharging or 
depositing, from beyond the boundary of the Sanctuary, any material or 
other matter that subsequently enters the Sanctuary and injures a 
Sanctuary resource or quality. There are five exceptions to these 
discharge prohibitions, one of which is the discharge of ``fish, fish 
parts, chumming materials or bait used in or resulting from traditional 
fishing operations in the Sanctuary'' (15 CFR 922.132(a)(2)(i)(A)). 
This exception is proposed to be amended to make it explicitly clear 
that it applies only to such discharges in the actual conduct of 
traditional fishing activities in the Sanctuary. Accordingly, the 
exemption would be amended to read ``fish, fish parts, chumming 
materials or bait produced and discarded incidental to and during 
traditional fishing operations conducted in the Sanctuary.'' Thus, it 
will be clear that the use of identical materials during the conduct of 
other activities does not fall within the exception to the discharge 
regulations and is prohibited.

3. Traditional Fishing

    There is presently no definition of traditional fishing in the 
MBNMS regulations. This term appears in four of the regulatory 
prohibitions. It was intended and has always been interpreted by NOAA 
to mean fishing using lawful commercial or recreational methods used 
within the Sanctuary prior to its designation. In order to ensure that 
there are no uncertainties as to the meaning of the term, NOAA is 
proposing to add to 15 CFR 922.131 definitions of ``fishing'' and 
``traditional fishing'' to the Sanctuary regulations. The term 
``fishing'' is proposed to be defined as: (i) The catching or 
harvesting of fish; or (ii) the attempted catching or harvesting of 
fish. The term ``traditional fishing'' is proposed to be defined as: 
``fishing using a lawful commercial or recreational fishing method used 
within the Sanctuary prior to its designation (September 18, 1992).'' 
Addition of these definitions would provide clear understanding of the 
scope of certain exceptions to the regulatory prohibitions.

IV. Miscellaneous Rulemaking Requirements

Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Impact

    This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for 
purposes of Executive Order 12866.

Executive Order 12612: Federalism Assessment

    NOAA has concluded that this regulatory action does not have 
federalism implications sufficient to warrant preparation of a 
federalism assessment under Executive Order 12612.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    NOAA has concluded that this regulatory action is not expected to 
have 

[[Page 5340]]
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities, and the Assistant General Counsel for Legislation and 
Regulation of the Department of Commerce has so certified to the Chief 
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. A 
prohibition against white shark attraction in the nearshore areas of 
the Sanctuary would not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities because: the number of commercial 
operators presently engaging in this activity is small; white shark 
attraction is not likely the sole source of business for such 
commercial operators because white sharks only inhabit the nearshore 
areas during the fall-winter season; and commercial operators would not 
be prohibited from bringing divers to dive in cages to observe white 
sharks in their natural state without the use of attractants. 
Accordingly, an initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis was not 
prepared.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposed rule would not impose an information collection 
requirement subject to review and approval by OMB under the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1980, 44 U.S.C. 3500 et seq.

National Environmental Policy Act

    NOAA has concluded that this regulatory action does not constitute 
a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human 
environment. Therefore, an environmental impact statement is not 
required.

List of Subjects in 15 CFR Part 922

    Administrative practice and procedure, Coastal zone, Education, 
Environmental protection, Marine resources, Natural resources, 
Penalties, Recreation and recreation areas, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Research.

(Federal Domestic Assistance Catalog Number 11.429 Marine Sanctuary 
Program)

    Dated: February 1, 1996.
David L. Evans,
Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator for Ocean Services and Coastal 
Zone Management.
    Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, 15 CFR Part 922 is 
proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 922--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 922 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1431 et seq.

Subpart--Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary

    2. Section 922.131 is amended by adding three definitions in 
alphabetical order to read as follows:


Sec. 922.131  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Attract or attracting means the conduct of any activity that lures 
by using food, bait, chum or any other means.
* * * * *
    Fishing means: (1) The catching or harvesting of fish; or (2) The 
attempted catching or harvesting of fish.
* * * * *
    Traditional fishing means fishing using a lawful commercial or 
recreational fishing method used within the Sanctuary prior to its 
designation (September 18, 1992).
    3. Section 922.132 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(2)(i)(A), 
and adding new paragraph (a)(10) to read as follows:


Sec. 922.132  Prohibited or otherwise regulated activities.

    (a) * * *
    (2)(i) * * *
    (A) Fish, fish parts, chumming materials or bait produced and 
discarded incidental to and during traditional fishing operations in 
the Sanctuary.
* * * * *
    (10) Attracting or attempting to attract any white shark in 
California state waters (3 miles seaward of mean high tide) in the 
Sanctuary.
* * * * * *
[FR Doc. 96-2686 Filed 2-9-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510--08--M