[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 245 (Thursday, December 19, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 66913-66918]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-32111]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

15 CFR Part 992

[Docket No. 950222055-6228-03]
RIN 0648-AH92


Regulation To Prohibit the Attraction of White Sharks in the 
Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary

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


[[Page 66914]]


ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is 
amending the regulations governing the Monterey Bay National Marine 
Sanctuary (MBNMS or Sanctuary) to prohibit the attraction of white 
sharks in the nearshore areas of the Sanctuary. The prohibition is 
intended to ensure that Sanctuary resources and qualities are not 
adversely impacted and to avoid conflicts among various users of the 
Sanctuary.

DATES: This final rule is effective January 21, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ed Ueber at 415-561-6622 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). The MBNMS regulations at 15 CFR 922.132(a) 
prohibit a relatively narrow range of activities primarily 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. The following concerns were 
identified throughout NOAA's review of this issue: (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, swimmers, divers, kayakers, and small craft operators), 
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.
    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 SRD 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 Aptos, 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. On February 12, 1996, SRD issued a proposed rule 
(61 FR 5335) to prohibit attracting white sharks in State waters of the 
Sanctuary.\1\ The comment period for the proposed rule ended on March 
31, 1996. SRD received 51 letters. Further, SRD held a public hearing 
in El Granada, California on March 1, 1996, where 16 oral comments were 
received. Most comments (88%) supported the proposed rule; 5% opposed 
the regulation; and the remaining 7% did not express a clear stand on 
the issue of white shark attraction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The ANPR and proposed rule also proposed to clarify the 
traditional fishing exception to the discharge prohibition in the 
existing regulations, as the shark attraction issue had raised a 
question as to the applicability of the exception as it pertained to 
shark attraction activities. Because the shark attraction 
prohibition fully addresses the concerns raised regarding this 
issue, NOAA will not address the clarification at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Comments and Responses

    The following is a summary of comments received on the proposed 
rule and NOAA's responses.
    (1) Comment: Artificially attracting white sharks causes short-term 
behavioral changes in white sharks, and many cause long-term changes.
    Response: NOAA agrees. As stated in the preamble to the proposed 
rule, research clearly supports that using attractants (e.g., chum) 
causes short-term behavioral changes in white sharks. This is further 
evidenced 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 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 Southern 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 
plan to prohibit attraction of white sharks in the nearshore areas of 
the Sanctuary,

[[Page 66915]]

including change in behavior caused by the activity.
    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 are 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 disturb 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 prompted 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.
    (2) Comment: Artificially attracting sharks in nearshore areas 
creates a risk to other users of those areas.
    Response: NOAA agrees. As stated in the preamble to the proposed 
rule, 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 risk of harm to those individuals from white 
shark attrack. 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% yes, 48% it depends, and 6% 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 attractions in areas 
frequented by people may increase the likelihood of these interactions.
    (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. As stated in the preamble to the proposed rule, altering 
white shark behavior can result in disruption of the local population 
and the associated ecosystem (e.g., change in predation rate of target 
species). 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 (e.g., the presence of an oily 
slick in areas where chumming had occurred was noted by several 
commenters on the ANPR).
    (4) Comment: One interpretation of the proposed regulation to 
prohibit attraction of white sharks might stop traditional recreational 
water uses that may inadvertently attract white sharks. NOAA should 
revise the regulation to clarify that it only applies to activities 
intended to attract white sharks.
    Response: NOAA does not intend the prohibition against attracting 
white sharks to restrict activities (e.g., swimming, diving, surfing, 
boating) that may lure white sharks by virtue of the mere presence of 
human beings (e.g., swimmers, divers, surfers, boaters, kayakers). This 
is the primary reason the regulation is tailored specifically to 
``attract or attracting,'' and not a broader prohibition against 
``taking.'' However, to ensure that the narrow scope of the prohibition 
is clear, NOAA has revised the definition of ``attract or attracting'' 
to indicate that it does not include luring white sharks by the mere 
presence of human beings.
    (5) Comment: The area where white shark attraction activities are 
banned needs to be clarified.
    Response: NOAA agrees. The shark attraction prohibition in the 
proposed regulation applied to State waters of the MBNMS, defined as 
three miles seaward of the mean high tide line, because, in part, the 
regulation was prepared in such a way as to supplement the existing 
State white shark regulation. The proposed definition, however, did not 
accurately characterize State waters, and left out those areas that may 
extend beyond three nautical miles from mean high tide, such as is the 
case with Monterey Bay itself. Therefore, the regulation has been 
revised to clarify that it applies from mean high tide to the seaward 
limit of State waters, as established under the Submerged Lands Act 
(SLA), 43 USC Sec. 1301 et seq., defined for purposes of the regulation 
as:

    Seaward to a line three nautical miles distant from the 
coastline of the State of California, where the coastline is the 
line of ordinary low water along the portion of the coast in direct 
contact with the open sea. The Coastline for Monterey Bay, which is 
inland waters, is the straight line marking the seaward limit of the 
Bay, determined by connecting the following two points: 
36 deg.57'6'' N, 121 deg.01'45'' W and 36 deg.38'16'' N, 121 deg. 
56'3'' W.

    (6) Comment: Expand the area where white shark attraction 
activities would be banned to six nautical miles from shore. The 
current three nautical miles from shore area does not provide 
sufficient protection to Sanctuary resources.
    Response: NOAA does not believe expanding the area beyond the 
seaward limit of State waters is warranted at this time. A large part 
of NOAA's concerns are based on the possible interactions between human 
users and white sharks, and human users are predominantly found in the 
nearshore waters of the Sanctuary. However, there will be some areas up 
to six nautical miles from shore where white shark attraction 
activities will be banned (see Response to (5) above).
    (7) Comment: Limit the restriction on white shark attraction to 
only those areas where white sharks are known to congregate (i.e., use 
a zoned approach).
    Response: NOAA disagrees. There is evidence indicating that, 
although white sharks may congregate in certain areas

[[Page 66916]]

(e.g., An Nuevo and the Farallon Islands), white sharks are found all 
along the coast of the Sanctuary. NOAA believes that the area described 
in the rule is warranted.
    (8) Comment: NOAA needs to clarify that white sharks are present in 
the nearshore areas of the Sanctuary year-round, not only in the fall 
and winter seasons.
    Response: NOAA agrees. While white sharks are in the nearshore 
areas predominantly during the fall and winter seasons when they 
congregate near seal and sea lion rookeries, white shark attacks in the 
nearshore areas of the Sanctuary have been documented at all times of 
years, indicating a year-round presence of white sharks.
    (9) Comment: Criteria for research or education permits for 
attraction of white sharks should be clearly spelled out.
    Response: Criteria for permit application consideration are listed 
in the MBNMS regulations at 15 CFR Secs. 922.48 and 922.133.
    (10) Comment: The criteria for permits are so high that it is 
highly unlikely permits will ever be issued for research or education 
activities that involve attracting white sharks. Therefore, the 
regulation amounts to an all-out prohibition as opposed to a 
restriction in some areas.
    Response: NOAA disagrees. The regulatory procedures and criteria 
for obtaining a Sanctuary permit, described in the notice of proposed 
rulemaking and found at 15 CFR Secs. 922.48 and 922.133, have been in 
place since the regulations were promulgated in 1992. The Sanctuary 
issues a number of permits each year for the conduct of activities that 
further research related to Sanctuary resources and/or further the 
educational resource value of the Sanctuary. Applications for permits 
to conduct white shark attraction activities in the Sanctuary will be 
assessed on a case-by-case basis based on the regulatory criteria.
    (11) Comment: Divers, kayakers, and small craft operators need to 
be added to the list of users who are at risk for white shark attacks.
    Response: NOAA agrees. The listing of users in the background 
portion of the rule has been revised. It should be noted, however, that 
this listing is intended to be illustrative, not exhaustive.
    (12) Comment: NOAA should add acoustical and visual types of 
attractants to the definition of ``attract or attracting''.
    Response: The definition of ``attract or attracting'' has been 
revised to add as examples acoustical and visual attractants. It should 
be noted, however, that this listing in intended to be illustrative, 
not exhaustive.
    (13) Comment: NOAA ignored information in the RAP Report that 
indicated that concern that non-marine chum acting as a vector for the 
transfer of terrestrial viruses was not really a concern.
    Response: NOAA acknowledges that the RAP Report states it is 
unlikely that non-marine chum can act as such a vector. The RAP report, 
however, does not preclude the possibility.
    (14) Comment: The proposed rule misapplies information (i.e., the 
response and comment section of the proposed rule contained information 
regarding the impacts of a fisherman killing four white sharks on the 
entire white shark population).
    Response: NOAA disagrees. The occurrence was offered as an example 
of how sensitive the white shark population is to human disturbance.
    (15) Comment: The proposed rule treats a rapidly expanding pinniped 
population as if it is in balance with a low birth rate shark 
population.
    Response: NOAA believes that the commenter misinterpreted the 
statement. The preamble to the proposed rule stated ``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.'' The statement was made as an 
example of how the predation rate of white sharks contributed to 
keeping a natural balance in fish and seabird populations.
    (16) Comment: The idea of expanding the taking prohibition in the 
ESA and MMPA to white sharks is unsettling, when white sharks are not 
listed under either of those acts.
    Response: One option NOAA considered early during this process was 
expanding the scope of the taking prohibition to include white sharks. 
NOAA's original definition of ``taking'' was derived from the Marine 
Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) and Endangered Species Act (ESA), and the 
current taking prohibition applies only to marine mammals, sea turtles, 
and seabirds. However, NOAA may use any legal tool at its discretion to 
protect Sanctuary resources, including expanding current Sanctuary 
regulations. Extending the ``taking'' prohibition to include white 
sharks was considered but was not chosen for a variety of reasons (see 
response to (4)).
    (17) Comment: The proposed rule is based on emotional arguments 
that have no place in objective decision-making by a Federal agency, or 
makes statements not supported by the evidence.
    Response: NOAA disagrees. NOAA relied on published scientific 
literature, the written and oral testimony of acknowledged white shark 
experts, and the expertise of its own Sanctuary Advisory Council's 
Research Activity panel, in its decision making process and believes 
that the regulation is well-supported by accurate and objective 
information.
    (18) Comment: The proposed rule changes the standard for acceptable 
activities, without public review of such a fundamental change (i.e., 
NOAA is appearing to require that activities provide a benefit with 
which NOAA will agree).
    Response: NOAA is unsure as to what ``standard'' the comment 
refers. The NMSA requires that NOAA facilitate multiple uses that are 
compatible with the primary mandate of resource protection. This is the 
primary factor that NOAA uses in determining what activities are 
acceptable within Sanctuary boundaries. As regards public review, NOAA 
has developed this rule through notice and comment rulemaking as 
required under the Administrative Procedure Act. Further, NOAA added 
the optional steps of issuing an advance notice of proposed rulemaking 
and holding public hearings on the advance notice and proposed rule to 
maximize public input into this rulemaking.
    (19) Comment: The proposed rule ignores the narrow intent of the 
California State law (i.e., to prevent the catching, capturing, or 
killing of white sharks).
    Response: NOAA disagrees. This rule is intended to supplement State 
law based on NOAA's concerns regarding the practice of artificial 
attraction of white sharks within the Sanctuary boundary, and has been 
formulated to address those concerns.
    (20) Comment: The proposed rule does not present a compelling need 
for Sanctuary regulations as opposed to local laws.
    Response: Existing State law prohibits only the direct take (e.g., 
catch, capture, or kill) of white sharks and does not

[[Page 66917]]

prohibit attraction. NOAA requested whether the State would expand its 
restriction but the State indicated that although legislation was a 
possible option, such an action could not occur until at least 1997 and 
that a rule was more appropriately initiated by the Sanctuary and its 
Advisory Council. Additionally, in promulgating a rule, SRD is under no 
obligation to present a compelling need for Sanctuary regulations as 
opposed to State or local laws. Consequently, NOAA decided it was 
necessary to address this issue through a Sanctuary regulation.
    (21) Comment: As the boundaries of the Monterey Bay, Gulf of the 
Farallones, and Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuaries are 
contiguous, this regulation should be enacted in all three.
    Response: NOAA believes that similar regulations for the Gulf of 
the Farallones and Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuaries are not 
necessary at this time.

III. Summary of Regulations

    This final rule amends 15 CFR 922.132(a) by adding a prohibition 
against attracting any white shark in that part of the Sanctuary out to 
the seaward limit of State waters, as established under the Submerged 
Lands Act, 43 U.S.C. 1301 et seq. In defining the seaward limit of 
State waters, the final regulation uses the term ``nautical mile'' in 
place of the SLA term ``geographical mile'' because ``nautical mile'' 
is a more commonly used term. However, these terms have the same 
definition which is a measure of length or distance that contains 6,080 
feet. Section 922.131 is also amended by adding a definition of 
``attract or attracting.'' 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 
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.
    There has been some concern expressed that NOAA make clear that 
activities not intended to attract white sharks, but that could 
incidentally attract them are not included in the prohibition. To 
address these concerns, NOAA has revised the definition of ``attract or 
attracting'' in the final rule as follows: ``the conduct of any 
activity that lures or may lure white sharks by using food, bait, chum, 
dyes, acoustics, or any other means, except the mere presence of human 
beings (e.g., swimmers, divers, boaters, kayakers, surfers).''

IV. Miscellaneous Rulemaking Requirements

    This final 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

    When this rule was prepared, the Assistant General Counsel for 
Legislation and Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to 
the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration 
that this rule, if adopted as proposed, would not be expected to have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
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 reliably inhabit the 
nearshore areas during part of the year; 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. The 
changes to the final rule and the comments on the proposed rule did not 
cause the reasons for this certification to change. Accordingly, 
neither an initial nor final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis was 
prepared.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This final rule does 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.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    This final rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory 
provisions of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(UMRA)) for State, local, and tribal governments or the private sector. 
Thus, this rule is not subject to the requirements of section 202 and 
205 of the UMRA.

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: December 6, 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 
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 M--Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary

    2. Section 922.131 is amended by adding the following definition in 
alphabetical order to read as follows:


Sec. 922.131  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Attract or attracting means the conduct of any activity that lures 
or may lure white sharks by using food, bait, chum, dyes, acoustics or 
any other means, except the mere presence of human beings (e.g., 
swimmers, divers, boaters, kayakers, surfers).
* * * * *
    3. Section 922.132 is amended by adding new paragraph (a)(10) to 
read as follows:


Sec. 922.132  Prohibited or otherwise regulated activities.

    (a) * * *

[[Page 66918]]

    (10) Attracting any white shark in that part of the Sanctuary out 
to the seaward limit of State waters. For the purposes of this 
prohibition, the seaward limit of State waters is a line three nautical 
miles distant from the coastline of the State, where the coastline is 
the line of ordinary low water along the portion of the coast in direct 
contact with the open sea. The coastline for Monterey Bay, which is 
inland waters, is the straight line marking the seaward limit of the 
Bay, determined by connecting the following two points: 36 deg.57'6'' 
N, 121 deg.01'45'' W and 36 deg.38'16'' N, 121 deg.56'3'' W.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 96-32111 Filed 12-18-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-08-M