[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 245 (Thursday, December 19, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 66933-66947]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-32123]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Parts 217 and 227

[Docket No.950830222-6274-03; I.D. 011696D]
RIN 0648-AH89


Sea Turtle Conservation; Revisions to Sea Turtle Conservation 
Requirements; Restrictions to Shrimp Trawling Activities

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS is issuing a final rule to amend the regulations 
protecting sea turtles. This final rule: Requires that turtle excluder 
devices (TEDs) be installed in try nets with a headrope length greater 
than 12 ft (3.6 m) and a footrope length greater than 15 ft (4.6 m), 
applicable December 19, 1997; removes the approval of the Morrison, 
Parrish, Andrews, and Taylor soft TEDs, applicable December 19, 1997 
(if improvements or modifications can be and are made to any of these 
soft TED designs so that they exclude turtles effectively, NMFS will 
institute a rulemaking to continue or reinstate the approval of any 
such soft TEDs as improved or modified); establishes Shrimp Fishery Sea 
Turtle Conservation Areas (SFSTCAs); and, within the SFSTCAs, imposes 
the new TED requirement for try nets, removes the approval of soft 
TEDs, and modifies the requirements for bottom-opening hard TEDs, 
effective March 1, 1997. This

[[Page 66934]]

final rule is necessary to enhance the effectiveness of the regulations 
protecting sea turtles in reducing sea turtle mortality resulting from 
shrimp trawling in the Atlantic and Gulf Areas in the southeastern 
United States.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 1, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Requests for a copy of the environmental assessment and 
regulatory impact review (EA/RIR) and biological opinion prepared for 
this final rule, or the report on TED testing should be addressed to 
the Chief, Endangered Species Division, Office of Protected Resources, 
NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles A. Oravetz, 813-570-5312, or 
Barbara A. Schroeder, 301-713-1401.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    All sea turtles that occur in U.S. waters are listed as either 
endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 
(ESA). The Kemp's ridley (Lepidochelys kempii), leatherback 
(Dermochelys coriacea), and hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata) are 
listed as endangered. Loggerhead (Caretta caretta) and green (Chelonia 
mydas) turtles are listed as threatened, except for breeding 
populations of green turtles in Florida and on the Pacific coast of 
Mexico, which are listed as endangered.
    The incidental take and mortality of sea turtles, as a result of 
shrimp trawling activities, have been documented in the Gulf of Mexico 
and along the Atlantic seaboard. Under the ESA and its implementing 
regulations, taking sea turtles is prohibited, with exceptions set 
forth at 50 CFR 227.72. The incidental taking of turtles during shrimp 
trawling in the Gulf and Atlantic Areas is excepted from the taking 
prohibition if the conservation measures specified in the sea turtle 
conservation regulations (50 CFR part 227, subpart D) are employed. The 
regulations require most shrimp trawlers operating in the Gulf of 
Mexico and Southeast U.S. Atlantic to have a NMFS-approved TED 
installed in each net rigged for fishing, year round.
    In 1994, coinciding with heavy nearshore shrimp trawling activity, 
unusually high numbers of dead sea turtles stranded along the coasts of 
Texas, Louisiana, Georgia, and northeast Florida. As a result of these 
strandings, NMFS reinitiated consultation on the shrimp fishery 
pursuant to section 7 of the ESA, and concluded in its November 14, 
1994, Biological Opinion (Opinion) that the long-term operation of the 
shrimp fishery, resulting in mortality of Kemp's ridleys at levels 
observed in 1994, was likely to jeopardize the continued existence of 
the Kemp's ridley population and could prevent the recovery of the 
loggerhead population. The major cause of the 1994 strandings was 
determined to be the improper use of TEDs by shrimpers in the Gulf of 
Mexico. Other causes identified were: (1) Certification of TEDs that 
are ineffective or incompatible with net types; and (2) intensive 
``pulse'' fishing in areas of high sea turtle abundance during the 
spring and summer of 1994. The simultaneous occurrence of intensive 
fishing effort and Kemp's ridley sea turtles may have led to the 
repeated submergence of individual turtles in short time periods, which 
may have contributed to the high level of mortality.
    The Opinion contained a Reasonable and Prudent Alternative and 
Incidental Take Statement (ITS) that required NMFS to develop and 
implement a Shrimp Fishery Emergency Response Plan (ERP) to respond to 
future stranding events and to ensure compliance with sea turtle 
conservation measures. As a general statement of policy, the ERP 
provided for elevated enforcement of TED regulations and identified 
management measures to be implemented in the event of elevated 
strandings or observed noncompliance with the regulations. The ERP 
identified specific stranding levels at which management measures may 
be implemented. A detailed discussion of the ERP was first published in 
a notice of availability (60 FR 19885, April 21, 1995) and again when 
it was revised (60 FR 52121, October 5, 1995) and is not repeated here.
    Under existing regulatory authority and as described under the 
guidance of the ERP, NMFS implemented 30-day additional gear 
restrictions through temporary rulemakings four times in 1995: Twice in 
the Gulf of Mexico and twice in the Atlantic. The 30-day requirements 
included all, or some combination of, the following: Prohibition of the 
use of soft TEDs and bottom-opening hard TEDs, prohibition of the use 
of a webbing flap completely covering the escape opening on a TED, and 
prohibition of the use of large try nets (over 12 ft (3.6 m) headrope 
length) without a NMFS-approved hard TED installed. Details regarding 
sea turtle strandings, shrimping effort, and other sources of mortality 
during periods for which temporary restrictions were imposed or 
considered are contained in Federal Register publications (60 FR 21741, 
May 3, 1995; 60 FR 26691, May 18, 1995; 60 FR 31696, June 16, 1995; 60 
FR 32121, June 20, 1995; 60 FR 42809, August 17, 1995; 60 FR 43106, 
August 18, 1995; 60 FR 44780, August 29, 1995), and supporting 
documents and are not repeated here.
    In 1996, temporary restrictions have been implemented only once. 
Due to an unprecedented number of strandings and in anticipation of 
nearshore shrimping effort with the reopening of State waters to shrimp 
fishing on June 24, 1996, NMFS implemented similar restrictions to 
those imposed in 1995 for a 30-day period along the Georgia coast (61 
FR 33377, June 27, 1996). Details regarding sea turtle strandings, 
shrimping effort, and other sources of mortality are contained in the 
temporary rule and are not repeated here.
    On September 13, 1995 (60 FR 47544), an Advance Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (ANPR) announced that NMFS was considering regulations that 
would identify special sea turtle management areas in the southeastern 
Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico and impose additional conservation measures 
to protect sea turtles in those areas. At the same time, NMFS also 
announced receipt of a petition for rulemaking from the Texas Shrimp 
Association (TSA) to revise the current sea turtle conservation 
requirements for the shrimp trawl fishery in the southeastern United 
States. The petition was based on a report: ``Sea Turtle and Shrimp 
Fishery Interactions--Is a New Management Strategy Needed?'' prepared 
by LGL Ecological Research Associates, Inc., for TSA (LGL Report).
    After extensive review of over 900 responses to the request for 
comments on the ANPR and the petition for rulemaking, NMFS published a 
proposed rule to amend the regulations protecting sea turtles to 
enhance their effectiveness in reducing sea turtle mortality resulting 
from shrimp trawling in the Atlantic and Gulf Areas in the southeastern 
United States (61 FR 18102, April 24, 1996; hereinafter referred to as 
the proposed rule). Proposed amendments were: Removing the approval of 
all soft TEDs, effective December 31, 1996; requiring by December 31, 
1996, the use of NMFS-approved hard TEDs in try nets with a headrope 
length greater than 12 ft (3.6 m) or a footrope length greater than 15 
ft (4.6 m); establishing SFSTCAs in the northwestern Gulf of Mexico 
consisting of the offshore waters out to 10 nm (18.5 km) along the 
coasts of Louisiana and Texas from the Mississippi River South Pass 
(west of 89 deg.08.5' W. long.) to the U.S.-Mexican border, and in the 
Atlantic consisting of the inshore waters and offshore waters out to 10 
nm (18.5 km) along the coasts of Georgia and South Carolina from the 
Georgia-Florida

[[Page 66935]]

border to the North Carolina-South Carolina border; and, within the 
SFSTCAs, removing the approval of all soft TEDs, imposing the new TED 
requirement for try nets, and prohibiting the use of bottom-opening 
hard TEDs, effective 30 days after publication of the final rule.
    NMFS reinitiated consultation on the November 14, 1994, Opinion 
based on the proposed rule, stranding-based incidental take levels that 
were exceeded, and new information, including preliminary analyses of 
the sea turtle expert working group (TEWG). On June 11, 1996, NMFS 
concluded that the continued, long-term operation of the shrimp fishery 
in the southeastern United States under the sea turtle conservation 
regulations as proposed to be amended by the proposed rule published on 
April 24, 1996, establishment of a vessel registration system, 
maintenance of the TED enforcement team and the TED technology transfer 
program is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of Kemp's 
ridley and loggerhead sea turtles. Unlike the ITS in the November 14, 
1994, Opinion that provided specific stranding levels for which NMFS 
would be required to take step-wise actions, the June 11, 1996, Opinion 
ITS did not make taking action contingent on specific stranding 
triggers. Rather, the new ITS specified that NMFS must respond to 
stranding events that reach unacceptable levels based on historical 
events.
    NMFS held 10 public hearings on the proposed rule throughout the 
southeastern United States. In addition, NMFS reopened the comment 
period to provide further opportunity to submit comments and review 
additional analyses, including the preliminary report that was 
submitted July 2, 1996, by the TEWG. The formation of this group of 
scientists to analyze existing databases to determine sea turtle 
population abundance, population trends, and sustainable take levels is 
an important function in developing and implementing recovery plans as 
specified under section 4(f) of the ESA and was a requirement of the 
November 14, 1994, Opinion.
    NMFS has conducted additional tests and investigations on trawl 
gear performance and sea turtle interactions that confirm information 
presented in the proposed rule. In particular, NMFS has further 
examined try nets, the use of TEDs with try nets, the function of 
commercial Andrews soft TEDs, and the effects of various configurations 
of hard TEDs on turtle exclusion efficiency. NMFS modified the proposed 
rule based on the results of these investigations (see below under 
Recent Gear Testing).
    On October 1, 1996, President Clinton signed H.R. 3610, ``The 
Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act, 1997.'' The Conference Report 
accompanying the Act at page 819 contains language directing NMFS ``not 
to decertify any turtle excluder devices until every effort has been 
made, working with industry and others, to improve or modify existing 
devices to increase turtle escapement.'' Therefore, the final rule has 
been further modified to not remove the approval of existing soft TEDs 
until 1 year after the date of publication of this final rule. This 
will allow all presently approved soft TEDs to be used outside of the 
SFSTCAs for 1 year and provide time for the development and testing of 
improvements or modifications to existing soft TEDs (or new soft TEDs) 
in cooperation with the shrimp fishing industry. In addition, NMFS will 
work with industry to seek solutions for improving the turtle exclusion 
rates of soft TEDs, and will make and publish its findings prior to the 
1-year removal of approval. If NMFS finds that improved or modified 
soft TEDs (or new soft TEDs) can effectively exclude turtles, NMFS will 
amend the regulations to approve such soft TEDs and allow their use.

Recent Gear Testing

Try Nets

    In the preamble to the proposed rule, NMFS presented results of try 
net capture rates of turtles during experimental trawling at Cape 
Canaveral, FL, in September 1994. Those results indicated that small 
try nets were much less likely to capture sea turtles than large try 
nets. In March 1996, additional tests were conducted at Cape Canaveral 
to examine more carefully the relationship of particular try net sizes 
to turtle capture rates. In this most recent study, 100 experimental 
tows were made, simultaneously pulling 3 try nets of different sizes. 
The try nets used were mongoose design nets with headrope lengths of 
approximately 12 ft (3.67 m), 15 ft (4.57 m), and 20 ft (6.10 m). In 
100 tows of 30-minute duration, the 20-ft (6.10-m) try net captured 17 
turtles, the 15-ft (4.57-m) try net captured 10 turtles, and the 12-ft 
(3.67-m) try net captured 8 turtles. The turtle catch-per-unit-effort, 
when adjusted for the amount of headrope, was approximately the same 
for the three net sizes, and a linear relationship between increasing 
try net size and increasing turtle captures appears to exist. These 
testing results reconfirm that large try nets, without TEDs, will 
capture more turtles than small try nets.
    NMFS gear experts also investigated the practical implications of 
installing hard TEDs in try nets of various sizes. As set forth at 50 
CFR 227.72, single-grid hard TEDs must be of a certain minimum size, 
depending on the area where they are used: In the Gulf Area, the 
minimum size is 28 inches (71 cm) wide by 28 inches (71 cm) high, and 
in the Atlantic Area, the minimum size is 30 inches (76 cm) wide by 30 
inches (76 cm) high. Gulf and Atlantic Area minimum size hard TEDs were 
successfully installed in try nets with 20-ft (6.10-m), 15-ft (4.57-m), 
and 12-ft (3.67-m) headrope lengths. Even in a 10-ft (3.05-m) headrope 
length try net, a Gulf minimum-size TED could be successfully 
installed. While all of these installations could be readily 
accomplished, the gear experts noted that installation of a hard TED in 
a try net will frequently require use of a tube of webbing to size-up 
the amount of webbing available in the trawl to attach to the TED 
extension webbing, and that the additional piece of tubing must be an 
appropriate length to ensure proper water flow in the try net.
    Properly installed TEDs produced no significant operational 
difficulties. The TED-equipped try nets did exhibit a slight loss of 
net spread, averaging 4 percent for all tested try nets. This narrower 
spread could be easily compensated by the use of a slightly larger pair 
of trawl doors. Deployment and retrieval of TED-equipped try-nets were 
also assessed. Due to the low frame weight of the minimum-size, hard 
TEDs (a 28-inch (71-cm) single grid hard TED weighed 4.5 lb (2.05 kg)), 
little additional effort was needed to retrieve the tailbag of a TED-
equipped try net. Finally, try nets with TEDs installed were tested for 
efficiency at excluding turtles. Twelve immature loggerhead turtles 
were released into the 3 smallest size try nets examined; all 12 
turtles escaped through the TEDs.

Andrews Soft TED

    In the fall of 1994, NMFS conducted underwater inspections and sea 
turtle exclusion testing on commercially available Morrison soft TEDs. 
That study revealed a high level of variability in soft TED 
installation among commercial net suppliers. That variability included 
a number of poorly installed TEDs that, despite meeting regulatory 
requirements, had slack areas and pockets that entangled sea turtles. 
NMFS believes that proper installation of soft TEDs is extremely 
difficult and that net makers are unable to evaluate

[[Page 66936]]

their own soft TED installations without the benefit of in-water 
examinations. In part, this was a reason for NMFS' proposal to remove 
the approval of all soft TEDs.
    The Andrews soft TED is constructed of 5-inch (12.7-cm) stretched-
mesh webbing, the smallest mesh size of any approved soft TED. Over the 
years, the Andrews soft TED has been tested with a variety of larger 
webbing sizes, but only the 5-inch (12.7-cm) design has been approved 
TED. The Andrews soft TED also employs a ``net-within-a-net'' design, 
whereas the other soft TED designs employ a panel separating the top 
and bottom of the trawl. The panel design of the other soft TEDs means 
that the edges of the excluder panel are attached to different parts of 
the trawl and that any changes in fishing configuration, even due to 
normal operations, can result in changes in the shape and therefore the 
effectiveness of the soft turtle excluder panel. The mouth and the exit 
opening of the Andrews TED's inner net is attached to the main trawl, 
with the top, sides, and bottom of the inner net unattached. This is 
referred to as a four-panel design. Also, some Andrews soft TEDs are 
installed using the bottom panel of the main trawl as the bottom panel 
of the inner net--a three-panel design. The shape of the inner net of 
the Andrews TED was believed to be less dependent on the shape of the 
main net because of the net-within-a-net design, and the smaller mesh 
size of the Andrews soft TED was believed to generate more drag and, 
consequently, a more consistent shape than other soft TED designs.
    In June 1996, NMFS conducted in-water evaluations of commercially 
available Andrews soft TEDs to determine whether the Andrews soft TED 
was less susceptible than other types of soft TEDs to installation 
variability with consequent slack webbing and pocketing that might 
entangle turtles. Five identical style nets were purchased from 
commercial industry net suppliers. Two were equipped with three-panel 
Andrews TEDs, and three were equipped with four-panel Andrews TEDs. 
Diver observations found that four of the five Andrews soft TEDs had 
some areas of slack webbing and pockets, with varying degrees of 
severity. Only one installation exhibited smooth webbing throughout. 
The five Andrews soft TED installations were tested for effectiveness 
at sea turtle exclusion, using the small turtle TED testing protocol 
(55 FR 41092, October 9, 1990). A total of 42 turtles were introduced 
into the Andrews TED-equipped nets; 21 were captured and failed to 
escape during the allotted 5-minute escape time. The rate of turtle 
capture in the different Andrews soft TED installations did not appear 
to be strongly influenced by the quality of the installations or the 
degree of slack and pocketing in the inner net. Rather, a very high 
proportion of the turtles became captured when they encountered the 
wing panels (the side portions) of the inner nets. For turtles that 
entered the trawl to the left or right of the center of the net, 21 out 
of 30 became captured when they became impinged or entangled in the 
wing panels. For turtles that entered the trawl at top dead center, 12 
out of 12 escaped the trawl easily, as they only encountered the top 
panel of the inner net. The small turtle TED testing protocol requires 
the use of a control TED, against which the performance of the 
candidate TED is measured. The control TED accounts for the possibility 
of variability in the testing conditions and the fitness of the turtles 
which may affect the observed escape rate for a candidate TED and 
serves as the standard whose performance must be equaled or exceeded 
(within statistical limits governed by the sample size) by a candidate 
TED. During the June 1996 test period, the control TED released 25 out 
of 25 turtles, with turtles being released into the trawl at center 
positions and positions left and right of center. The 50 percent 
capture rate (21 out of 42 turtles) documented for the five Andrews 
soft TED installations was significantly higher than for the control 
TED. The performance of each Andrews soft TED installation, when taken 
separately, was also statistically significantly worse than the control 
TED.
    The results of the Andrews soft TED testing revealed a problem with 
soft TEDs that had previously not been considered, but that confirms 
basic design problems with soft TEDs generally. The extremely high 
capture rates for turtles that encountered the wing panels were 
apparently independent of the quality of the TED installation. 
Likewise, the high escape rates of turtles that traveled along the top 
panel of the inner net also appeared to be independent of the quality 
of the TED installation. The quality of the installation appeared to 
have less impact on turtle capture than the basic design of the TED. 
The wing panels in the Andrews soft TED inner net have a high angle of 
incidence with the water flow through the trawl. This angle is a result 
of the sharp tapering of the wing panels from the sides of the mouth of 
the main trawl (which may spread up to 50 ft (15.2 m) or more) to the 
exit hole in the throat of the main net. The top panel, on the other 
hand, has a very low angle of incidence to water flow, as it tapers 
from a height of approximately 2-4 ft (0.61-1.22 m) (up to a maximum 
net mouth height of 10-11 ft (3.05-3.35 m)) down to the exit hole in 
the bottom of the main net. Turtles that only encountered the top panel 
of the Andrews TED's inner net slid easily along its gradual slope. 
Turtles which encountered the wing panels, however, were impinged 
against the webbing due to the high angle of incidence to the water 
flow, and were unable to exert any effective force against the flexible 
webbing of the excluder panel to remove themselves. The angle of 
incidence of the wing panels to the water flow was approximately 
45 deg. in these Andrews TED installations, which is the recommended 
angle of incidence for single-grid hard TEDs. With hard TEDs, however, 
turtles are able to push effectively against the rigid deflector bars 
and avoid impingement.

Single-Grid Hard TEDs

    The relative efficiency of various installations of a curved bar 
single-grid hard TED (Super Shooter style) and a straight bar single-
grid hard TED (Georgia Jumper style) were evaluated through diver 
observations and small turtle release testing in June 1996. The purpose 
of these evaluations was to determine whether TED design and 
installation variables such as grid angle and flap length are 
significant factors in the exclusion of sea turtles. Previous studies 
that only examined curved bar style TEDs had shown that turtles 
required longer to escape from bottom-opening hard TEDs than top-
opening hard TEDs and that reducing the flap length on top-opening hard 
TEDs further reduced the average turtle escape time.
    The June 1996 testing generally reconfirmed the earlier results of 
faster escape times for top- vs. bottom-opening hard TEDs and for TEDs 
with a shortened webbing flap over the escape opening. The June 1996 
testing also revealed differences in turtle exclusion effectiveness 
based on the style of grid used and the grid angle. The curved bar grid 
TED was more effective at excluding turtles than the straight bar grid 
TED when both were installed at a 53 deg. angle to the water flow (near 
the maximum 55 deg. allowed under the current regulations) and equipped 
with a webbing flap (as defined at 50 CFR 227.72) over the escape 
opening of 24 inches (70.0 cm--the maximum length allowed under the 
current regulations). In a top-opening configuration, the curved bar 
TED successfully excluded

[[Page 66937]]

25 out of 25 turtles, while the straight-bar TED excluded 8 out of 10 
turtles. In a bottom-opening configuration, the curved bar TED excluded 
9 out of 10 turtles, while the straight-bar TED excluded only 1 out of 
8 turtles. The turtle escape time required was not significantly 
different between the curved and straight bar grids in each 
configuration. To further examine the factors affecting the observed 
poor performance of the bottom-opening, straight bar grid TED, the TED 
was reinstalled with a 43 deg. angle to the water flow. This angle 
change significantly improved the turtle escape success to six out of 
nine turtles, without a significant change in escape time. Next, the 
straight bar TED was tested at a 43 deg. angle with the webbing flap 
shortened to extend no further than the bars of the TED. The shortened 
flap length improved the turtle escape success to eight out of nine 
turtles and significantly reduced the average escape time required from 
114.2 seconds to 44.9 seconds. The effect of a shortened webbing flap 
was also examined with the bottom-opening, curved bar TED, installed at 
55 deg.. Relative to the full-length flap, this modification increased 
the turtle escape success to 10 out of 10 turtles, but did not 
significantly change the average escape time required. A curved bar TED 
was also tested at a very low installation angle of 30 deg., in a 
bottom-opening configuration with a full-length flap. The very low 
angle of installation did significantly reduce the average escape time 
required from 86.2 to 31.4 seconds, compared to a 55 deg. installation, 
but it did not change the turtle escape success, which remained at 9 
out of 10 turtles. Finally, both the curved bar TED and the straight 
bar TED were tested in bottom-opening configurations with the webbing 
flaps shortened, the required floats removed, and the TEDs riding on 
the sea floor. When riding on the bottom, the curved bar TED excluded 
zero out of five turtles, whereas the straight bar TED excluded four 
out of five turtles.
    A complete report of the June 1996 TED testing results has been 
prepared by the NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center. Interested 
parties may request a copy (see ADDRESSES).

Comments on the Proposed Rule

    NMFS received approximately 5,600 responses to the request for 
comments on the proposed rule, both at the public hearings and by 
letter. NMFS reviewed all comments and has grouped them for response 
according to general subject matter. References are made only to some 
organizations or associations and not to all of the groups or private 
individuals who may have made similar comments. Many comments were 
received that essentially repeated comments that had been given 
regarding the ANPR and to which NMFS responded in the preamble to the 
proposed rule. NMFS has reviewed its responses to those comments (61 FR 
18102, April 24, 1996) based on this most recent round of comments and 
new information, and reconfirms those responses except as otherwise 
noted below.

Justification for the Final Rule

    Comment 1: More than 5,200 comments were received that expressed 
strong support for additional sea turtle protections, including the 
measures contained in the proposed rule. Supporters of additional sea 
turtle protections pointed to the still critically low number of 
nesting Kemp's ridley sea turtles, the apparent lack of recovery of 
loggerhead sea turtles, and the continued association of high sea 
turtle strandings with high shrimping effort. A large number of 
commenters, however, mostly from within the shrimping industry, 
questioned the need for any additional protection for turtles from the 
impacts of shrimp fishing. Opponents of additional protective measures 
discussed the increasing number of Kemp's ridley nests and the probable 
role that prior TED use has played in that increase, the high levels of 
observed compliance with TED requirements in the shrimp industry, and 
alleged that unacceptable costs would accrue to the shrimp industry 
from the measures in the proposed rule.
    Response: The report from the TEWG confirmed that the number of 
Kemp's ridley nests has been increasing since 1987, and there also 
appears to be an increase in the survival rates of benthic immature and 
adult Kemp's ridleys after 1989, corresponding with the beginning of 
widespread TED-use. The TEWG estimated the total adult female 
population of Kemp's ridleys in 1995 to be 1,500 individuals, 
dramatically fewer than the 40,000 females that were observed nesting 
on a single day less than 50 years ago and far less than the delisting 
criterion to attain a population of at least 10,000 nesting females 
specified in the recovery plan. For loggerheads, the TEWG found that 
the sub population, which nests from northeast Florida through North 
Carolina (the South Atlantic shrimping grounds), is not recovering. The 
south Florida loggerhead sub-population was found to have increased 
over the past 25 years, but no significant population trends were seen 
over the last 7 years. In addition, the decreasing proportion of 
immature loggerheads in this sub-population may have negative future 
implications for the recovery of loggerheads.
    NMFS is responsible under section 7(a)(1) of the ESA to use its 
authorities to conserve listed species. NMFS is also responsible for 
developing and implementing recovery plans and protective regulations 
under section 4 of the ESA. Thus, a series of regulatory actions and 
biological opinions have recognized and attempted to address the 
continued problem of high sea turtle strandings associated with shrimp 
fishing (see Background). Among the identified causes of the continued 
strandings have been the improper use of TEDs and the use of 
inefficient TEDs by shrimp fishermen. Even with high regulatory 
compliance in the shrimp industry, the use of ineffective TEDs will 
undermine sea turtle protective measures, perpetuate turtle strandings 
related to shrimp trawling, and create the need for intermittent, 
reactive measures to manage negative shrimp trawling/sea turtle 
interactions.
    NMFS considered a variety of management options for reducing sea 
turtle mortality in the shrimp fishery. The EA/RIR for this final rule 
(see ADDRESSES) fully evaluates all the considered alternatives, and 
the measures selected for this final rule were determined to have the 
least adverse impact on the shrimp trawling industry, while 
accomplishing the objectives of reducing shrimp fishing-related turtle 
mortality.
    Comment 2: Many commenters questioned the proposed rule's focus on 
enhancing the effectiveness of approved TEDs and recommended that 
shrimp trawling effort be reduced in addition to, or instead of, the 
measures of the proposed rule. More than 5,200 proponents of the 
proposed rule also stated that the proposed measures did not go far 
enough to address problems of excess effort in the shrimp fishery. An 
industry organization, TSA, commented that introduction of changes to 
the present TED requirements was inappropriate and that measures to 
reduce nearshore shrimping effort should be adopted instead. 
Specifically, TSA again urged adoption of its petition for rulemaking 
(LGL Report).
    An additional fishing effort-reduction proposal was given by the 
Georgia Fishermen's Association and multiple Georgia fishermen who 
urged NMFS to adopt a nighttime closure of Federal waters off Georgia 
to shrimping that would be complementary to current state closures.
     Response: NMFS had previously sought public comments on the LGL

[[Page 66938]]

Report and responded to those in the proposed rule for this action (61 
FR 18102, April 24, 1996; see comments 6 through 9). NMFS has further 
considered the petition in light of comments received on the proposed 
rule and analyzed its components as alternatives in the EA/RIR prepared 
for this final rule (see ADDRESSES).
    NMFS agrees that heavy nearshore shrimping effort contributes to 
sea turtle mortality. Management measures that would reduce nearshore 
shrimping effort likely would also reduce sea turtle strandings. If 
nearshore shrimping effort results in sea turtle mortality, it is 
because turtles are either being entrapped in ineffective TEDs, being 
submerged for an excessive period of time in trawls with TEDs with slow 
release times, or being captured in try nets that are not equipped with 
TEDs. Repeated capture under any of these conditions would further 
increase the likelihood of sea turtle mortality. The shrimp fishery 
effort limitation plans that have been proposed to NMFS to date would 
have significant catch allocation consequences and possible widespread 
socio-economic ramifications. Some sectors of the fishing industry 
would bear significant adverse economic impacts without a significant 
improvement to the protection of sea turtles. Most of the effort-
reduction measures considered have already generated significant 
controversy in the shrimp industry. NMFS will continue to evaluate the 
feasibility and benefits of various means to reduce intense nearshore 
shrimping effort, but does not believe that current information on 
biological benefits and socio-economic impacts is sufficient to justify 
implementing major effort reduction measures at this time. NMFS 
believes that the modifications to the gear requirements made by this 
final rule will lessen the adverse impacts from heavy nearshore 
shrimping effort. Effort reduction measures should be considered after 
available technological solutions are exhausted.

Soft TEDs

    Some comments regarding soft TEDs were general, either supporting 
or opposing their prohibition. Most commenters who made remarks on soft 
TEDs, though, specifically addressed particular soft TED designs, 
especially the Andrews soft TED.
    Comment 3: Fishermen and shrimp industry representatives, 
particularly from the southwest Florida area, objected strongly to 
removing the approval of the Andrews soft TED. Some argued that the 
evidence presented in the preamble to the proposed rule to support the 
prohibition of soft TEDs was applicable to the Morrison and Taylor 
TEDs, but not to the Andrews TED. They stated that the Andrews TED, due 
to its design, could be consistently installed correctly. Other 
commenters recommended that, if proper installation is critical for 
Andrews soft TEDs, a limited number of net makers be allowed to 
continue making Andrews TEDs if they pass a certification test that 
proves their ability to consistently install the TEDs correctly. 
Fishermen stated that the Andrews TED was the only type of TED that 
would work in the southwest Florida fishery because of its ability to 
exclude the large sponges that are encountered there. Some commenters 
stated that, even if all soft TEDs are prohibited, an exemption should 
be created to allow the continued use of the Andrews TED in the 
southwest Florida area. Other advocates of the Andrews TED pointed to 
its valuable bycatch reduction characteristics as justification for its 
continued use. Some commenters discounted the Andrews TED's high shrimp 
loss rates as a problem, asserting that shrimpers should be allowed to 
select their own gear type regardless of its performance.
    Response: NMFS conducted additional testing to evaluate the 
performance of commercially available soft TEDs (see Recent Gear 
Testing above). In those tests, the Andrews soft TED performed poorly 
at excluding turtles. In four out of five commercially produced Andrews 
soft TEDs, there were significant pockets and slack areas in the 
webbing. The excessive level of turtle captures in the Andrews TEDs 
appeared to be independent of the quality of the TED's installation, 
however. While poor, inconsistent installation did appear to be a 
problem with the Andrews soft TED, inherent problems with the use of 
soft webbing were responsible for the turtle captures observed. The 
turtles' inability to free themselves from flexible webbing, even when 
the webbing is taut with a mesh size as small as 5-inch (12.7-cm) 
stretched mesh, is illustrative of the inherent difficulties with using 
webbing as an excluder panel. Certification of net makers to ensure 
consistent installation of Andrews TEDs would not address that problem.
    The Andrews TED has been the TED of choice in the southwest Florida 
fishing grounds. The Andrews TED has a large exit opening out of the 
bottom of the trawl and can exclude the large sponges encountered in 
that fishing area. Bottom-opening hard TEDs are equally able to exclude 
sponges and large debris. In southwest Florida, increasing numbers of 
vessels are using very large bottom-opening hard TEDs with curved bars. 
When the webbing flap over the escape opening is shortened or split, 
these TEDs also get rid of the sponge debris that is unique to the 
southwest Florida shrimping grounds. Hard TEDs also have much better 
shrimp retention than the Andrews TED. Consequently, viable options do 
exist to the use of the Andrews soft TED in southwest Florida.
    NMFS is aware of the Andrews soft TED's excellent finfish reduction 
characteristics, but the primary purpose of TEDs is the exclusion of 
sea turtles incidentally captured in trawls. The most recent testing 
data show that the Andrews soft TED, as presently designed, is 
ineffective at excluding turtles. Bycatch reduction devices have been 
designed that work in conjunction with approved hard TEDs and that 
result in much lower shrimp loss than the Andrews soft TED. While NMFS 
has dual charges to conserve endangered species as well as commercially 
valuable marine resources, the ESA requires that Federal actions, 
including fisheries management, be conducted in a manner that minimizes 
impacts to endangered and threatened species and promotes their 
recovery.
    Comment 4: Some commenters stated that problems with soft TEDs 
resulting from improper installation, unrepaired holes in nets, and 
illegal webbing sizes should be addressed through enhanced enforcement 
and not through elimination of this TED type.
    Response: NMFS is concerned about the difficulty of inspecting soft 
TEDs aboard trawlers and enforcing regulatory compliance for soft TEDs. 
Holes are frequently cut in soft TEDs through normal wear and tear, and 
fishermen have reported that turtles are sometimes captured when they 
pass through them. The suggestion that improved enforcement efforts 
could solve all of these problems has proven impracticable. The most 
recent testing data, however, have shown that basic design problems may 
result in more turtle captures in the Andrews soft TED than improper 
installation or holes in the webbing.
    Comment 5: Several commenters objected to the elimination of the 
provision of the regulations which allow new soft TED designs to become 
approved. Future approval of new soft TED designs should be permitted 
to allow for innovations that may prove effective in excluding turtles.
    Response: NMFS believes that the problems inherent in using soft 
webbing material as a turtle excluder are serious and widespread. These 
problems have

[[Page 66939]]

been demonstrated in the currently approved soft TEDs. NMFS recognizes, 
however, that there are positive attributes of soft TEDs. These 
positive attributes include their low purchase cost (although that low 
cost is offset by more frequent repairs and replacements), their 
collapsibility and ease of stowage, and, in the case of the Andrews 
TED, excellent rates of bycatch reduction. NMFS is also mindful of a 
strong desire, expressed by shrimp fishermen and the Congress, to 
continue using soft TEDs.
    Since the currently approved soft TEDs have been shown to be 
ineffective at excluding sea turtles, improvements or modifications to 
existing soft TEDs to increase sea turtle escapement must be made to 
allow shrimp fishermen to continue using these existing soft TED 
designs for a long term. NMFS intends to undertake intensive efforts to 
identify technical solutions or modifications for soft TEDs that will 
make them effective at excluding sea turtles. NMFS will seek the advice 
of a panel of gear experts and industry and environmental stakeholders 
to propose solutions for soft TEDs (see comment 15 below). This process 
should produce multiple initiatives for further evaluation, possibly 
including entirely new soft TED designs. If any of these initiatives 
produce a soft TED that is demonstrated to effectively exclude turtles, 
it will be approved for use without delay. If no solutions can be found 
to improve the performance of soft TEDs, this final rule automatically 
will remove the approval of those TEDs in 1 year. Delaying removing the 
approval of soft TEDs for 1 year, allows shrimpers to continue to use 
for that period the presently approved soft TEDs in all areas outside 
of the SFSTCAs. This 1-year period may allow the shrimp industry to 
develop innovations that will significantly improve the effectiveness 
of soft TEDs in excluding turtles. It would also avoid adverse impacts 
to fishermen who could continue to use their preferred gear for 1 year 
and, if effective modifications to their soft TEDs are developed, 
thereafter. Thirty days prior to the end of the 1-year period, NMFS 
will publish a notification of the results of the soft TED improvement 
initiatives and associated testing. This notification will include a 
determination regarding existing soft TEDs for which no improvements or 
solutions are found and for which the approval will be removed by this 
rule. Improvements or modifications to existing soft TED designs which 
effectively exclude sea turtles will also be identified and addressed 
in that notification. NMFS intends that successful improvements and 
modifications to existing soft TEDs that result in such TEDs 
effectively excluding sea turtles will be incorporated in the TED 
regulations through rulemaking.
    Under the current process of TED approval, two scientific testing 
protocols have been approved by NMFS determining whether a TED excludes 
turtles at a 97 percent or greater rate. These two protocols were 
published previously (52 FR 24262, June 29, 1987; and 55 FR 41092, 
October 9, 1990) and are referenced in the existing regulations at 50 
CFR 227.72(e)(5). As discussed above, soft TEDs have deficiencies which 
are not addressed by the existing protocols. Consequently, NMFS will no 
longer use strictly these protocols in testing soft TEDs. While no 
generic protocol has yet been developed for testing soft TEDs, NMFS 
will expeditiously test soft TEDs on a case-by-case protocol basis that 
addresses the problems identified in the preamble of this rule, and 
thus assures that any soft TED subsequently approved will adequately 
exclude turtles (i.e. will exclude turtles at a 97 percent rate or 
statistical equivalent).
    NMFS is interested in possible innovations that can provide sea 
turtle protection from the adverse impacts of shrimp trawling. These 
innovations may include alternatives beyond simply introducing improved 
soft TED designs. In fact, NMFS has solicited proposals from academic 
institutions and the shrimp industry for the development of 
alternatives to the use of TEDs for sea turtle protection. The 
solicitation was published in the Commerce Business Daily on July 30, 
1996. NMFS will be continuing this initiative to develop alternatives 
to TEDs, while also working intensively to identify improvements or 
modifications for soft TEDs.
    Comment 6: One commenter stated that problems observed with the 
Morrison soft TED are, in part, attributable to its regulatory 
specifications and problems with turtle capture only occur in certain 
types of straight wing flat nets and in a type of tongue trawl under 
certain adjustments.
    Response: This comment underscores several problems with soft TEDs 
in general, not just the Morrison TED. NMFS has found that soft TEDs 
that meet regulatory specifications can vary greatly due to differences 
in installation techniques and the size and style of trawl nets in 
which they are installed. Trawl nets are often custom-made for each 
fisherman. The potential number of combinations of trawl styles and 
sizes is tremendous. Specifying soft TED dimensions and installation 
procedures for each combination would be impossible, as would be 
testing each of these combinations for its effectiveness at excluding 
turtles. The shape of each net and soft TED excluder panel can then be 
further modified during shrimping operations through the addition of 
floats to the headrope, changing trawl door sizes or trawl speed, or 
adjusting center bridle tension. NMFS agrees that the types of trawls 
mentioned by the commenter are incompatible with the Morrison TED. Many 
other sizes and styles of nets are also likely to be incompatible with 
the Morrison TED, but determining which ones would be a very difficult 
task. Efforts to develop effective soft TEDs will likely have to 
address the problems with soft TEDs highlighted by this comment.

Try Nets

    Comment 7: Most comments regarding the proposed removal of the 
exemption of large try nets from required TED use were specific to the 
try net size criteria. Recommendations were made that TEDs should be 
required in try nets ranging from 15-18 ft (4.6-5.5 m) headrope length. 
These sizes were suggested because they were more in keeping with the 
size of try nets traditionally used by fishermen in various areas. Many 
fishermen stated that TEDs could not be installed in, or would not work 
in, try nets as small as 12 ft (3.6 m) headrope length and 15 ft (4.6 
m) footrope length. In addition, some fishermen stated that 12-ft (3.6-
m) try nets cannot be used to sample shrimp catches. Some fishermen 
stated that, particularly when fishing for white shrimp, a large try 
net is used, often with extra flotation or a tongue or bib, to sample a 
large amount of the water column, and a small try net would not be an 
effective replacement. Some commenters argued that TEDs should not be 
required in try nets of any size because fishermen limit their tow-
times with try nets.
    Response: NMFS conducted gear testing (see Gear Testing Results), 
which demonstrated that hard TEDs can be installed in try nets as small 
as 12 ft (3.6 m) headrope length. Use of TEDs in small try nets was 
found to pose no significant operational problems.
    Many commenters showed a slight misconception of the proposed 
changes in the TED exemption for try nets; some objected to 
prohibitions of large try nets or requiring TEDs in very small try 
nets. Try nets with a headrope length of 12 ft (3.6 m) or less and a 
footrope length of 15 ft (4.6 m) or less would not require a TED under 
the measures of the proposed rule. NMFS expects that

[[Page 66940]]

fishermen using this size of try net will elect not to install a TED in 
that size try net, even though it is technically and operationally 
possible. Fishermen who can effectively use a small try net, or those 
who do not wish to use a TED in a try net, will likely use try nets 
with a 12-ft (3.6-m) or smaller headrope length. Contrary to the 
assertions of some commenters, small try nets are effective at sampling 
catch rates. In fact, the States of Mississippi and Alabama require 
that try nets used in their inshore waters be no larger than 12 ft (3.6 
m) and 10 ft (3.0 m) headrope length, respectively. Fishermen who 
believe that a larger try net is necessary may use a try net of any 
size they wish, but a TED must installed. NMFS specifically tested 
large try nets equipped with tongues, which was the preferred gear 
specified by some commenters for sampling white shrimp. These large try 
nets worked well with TEDs.
    NMFS disagrees with the rationale that the size of TED-exempt try 
nets should be selected based on the size of try nets preferred by most 
fishermen. The use of larger try nets without TEDs in commercial 
shrimping results in captures of turtles with no possibility of escape. 
These captures contribute significantly to the number of documented 
turtle takes and likely contribute to continued shrimping-associated 
strandings of sea turtles. While NMFS strives to minimize the number of 
fishermen impacted by regulatory changes, selection of a TED-exempt try 
net size that would produce no effective change in the gear used in the 
commercial fleet nor its impacts on turtles would be of little value. 
NMFS has determined that TED exemptions can be continued for try nets 
of 12 ft (3.6 m) or less headrope length and 15 ft (4.6 m) or less 
footrope length. This size will provide reasonable options for 
fishermen to use gear without TEDs, while minimizing the possibility of 
turtle capture. To minimize effects on the shrimping industry, NMFS is 
implementing the changes to the TED-exemption for try nets through a 
phase-in approach.

Bottom-opening Hard TEDs

    Most commenters who provided comments specific to the proposed 
measure of prohibiting the use of bottom-opening hard TEDs in the 
SFSTCAs were opposed, at least in part, to this measure. Multiple 
reasons were given and are responded to separately.
    Comment 8: Bottom-opening hard TEDs are a necessary option for 
fishing in certain conditions. Commenters at the public hearings in 
Charleston, SC, and Brunswick, GA, in particular, objected to the 
proposal to prohibit the use of bottom-opening hard TEDs in the 
SFSTCAs. Fishermen from other areas, some environmental organizations, 
and some state natural resource agencies also spoke in favor of bottom-
opening hard TEDs. Many commenters stated that bottom-opening TEDs are 
required to allow the exclusion of heavy debris that occurs in certain 
fishing areas. If debris cannot be excluded in top-opening hard TEDs, 
they argued, the turtle escape opening may become clogged, hindering 
sea turtle release and causing shrimp loss.
    Response: NMFS recognizes that the ability of bottom-opening hard 
TEDs to exclude debris is a desirable quality for many fishermen. Many 
items like sponges, horseshoe crabs, shells, and pieces of wood can be 
excluded, reducing the fisherman's catch-culling time and the potential 
for damage to gear from wear and tear. This advantage of bottom-opening 
TEDs may only provide enhanced turtle exclusion under limited 
circumstances, as a large amount of these small debris items would have 
to accumulate to obstruct a top-opening TED. Fishermen cited certain 
types of large debris, such as abandoned crab traps, tree stumps, and 
empty drums as posing a threat to turtles in top-opening hard TEDs. In 
fact, these types of debris are more likely to obstruct the escape 
opening of a bottom-opener since they will lie in the bottom of the 
trawl, and it is not certain that large pieces of debris will passively 
find their way through the escape opening in a bottom-opening hard TED 
using an optional webbing flap of the maximum allowable length. Turtles 
may still be able to go over a large piece of debris to escape through 
a top-opening TED. Very large debris items that completely obstruct the 
throat of the trawl net are unlikely to be excluded from a top- or a 
bottom-opening hard TED and may result in turtle captures.
    Comment 9: Some commenters also argued that slower escape times 
from bottom-opening hard TEDs compared with top-openers are not 
important contributors to turtle mortality and that NMFS testing data 
showed that properly floated bottom-opening hard TEDs were effective at 
releasing turtles. Some commenters criticized NMFS' methods of testing 
TEDs as unrepresentative of actual commercial trawling conditions, and 
thus, as unrepresentative of the actual escape times for sea turtles.
    Response: NMFS agrees that its TED testing methods are not 
completely representative of commercial trawling conditions. The 
possibility for turtle capture in a TED under commercial trawling 
conditions may be greater under some circumstances, such as the 
presence of debris in the trawl and the weight of catch or mud forcing 
the TED to ride on the sea floor. Under commercial trawling conditions, 
turtles are captured after already being submerged for an unknown 
length of time and after some are exhausted from fleeing the trawl that 
overtakes them. Turtles captured under commercial trawling conditions 
may have little or no visual means to find a TED's escape opening, due 
to turbid water or night. These difficulties are not present during 
NMFS' testing of TEDs. On the other hand, TED testing uses small 
turtles, slightly larger than the minimum size turtles that strand in 
the southeast United States. Adult or large juvenile turtles may be 
better able to escape under some conditions due to their greater 
strength. The small turtle TED testing protocol requires the use of a 
control TED, against which the performance of candidate TED is 
measured. The control TED accounts for the possibility of variability 
in the testing conditions and the fitness of the turtles, which may 
affect the observed escape rate for a candidate TED, and serves as the 
standard whose performance must be equaled or exceeded (within 
statistical limits governed by the sample size) by a candidate TED.
    In TED testing conducted during May 1995, NMFS observed that small 
turtles require almost twice as long to escape from a bottom-opening 
TED vs. a top-opening TED (an average of 125.6 seconds vs. an average 
of 68.8 seconds). These tests were conducted using a curved-bar style 
grid TED, under ideal conditions, and the TED had a perfect turtle 
exclusion record in both the top-opening and bottom-opening 
configuration. The June 1996 TED trials included comparisons to examine 
more closely the effects of various single-grid hard TED configurations 
on TED efficiency (see Gear Testing Results). The June 1996 tests 
revealed previously unknown problems with turtle capture in straight-
bar, bottom-opening TEDs installed at high angles and fitted with long 
webbing flaps. Shortening the webbing flaps and lowering the angles of 
straight-bar, bottom-opening TEDs reduced the turtle capture rate and 
the mean TED escape time. Shortening the webbing flap on the curved-bar 
bottom-opening hard TEDs also reduced the turtle capture rate. These 
changes allowed the performance of the bottom-opening hard TEDs to 
approach that of the control, top-opening curved-bar

[[Page 66941]]

style TED, which had a perfect turtle exclusion rate and a fast mean 
TED escape time.
    The June 1996 TED testing revealed that some configurations of 
bottom-opening hard TEDs may have a problem with high turtle capture 
rates. Obviously, turtle capture in a TED poses a greater threat to a 
turtle than a longer escape time. By reducing the straight-bar, bottom-
opening TED's angle and shortening its flap, however, both the turtle 
escape success and the average escape time were improved, and with the 
curved-bar TEDs, shortening the webbing flap resulted in 100 percent 
turtle-escape success. NMFS is still concerned that repeat captures and 
forced submergences in shrimp trawls, compounded by longer release 
times from TEDs, could be producing stress and blood acidosis levels 
that are contributing to the mortality of sea turtles, particularly 
small juveniles and sub-adults. The June 1996 TED testing showed, 
however, the need to take measures that will minimize the possibility 
of turtle captures in TEDs, not just reducing escape times. These 
measures are justified based on turtle capture rates alone, regardless 
of the physiological effects of forced submergence.
    Comment 10: Comments from some fishermen and environmental 
organizations distinguished between the need for bottom-opening hard 
TEDs in the Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico. These commenters stated 
that the bottom types (either soft mud or sand) and the presence of 
sand waves, high tides, and large amounts of debris in the Atlantic 
necessitated the use of bottom-opening hard TEDs. In addition, they 
pointed to the use of bottom-opening hard TEDs with bar spacings of 
only 2 inches (5.1 cm) by some shrimpers in the Atlantic, and stated 
that these types of TEDs were less likely to catch sea turtles. An 
environmental organization stated that the average size of turtles in 
the Atlantic shrimping area is larger than in the Gulf, and 
restrictions on bottom-opening TEDs are therefore not necessary in the 
Atlantic.
    Response: NMFS disagrees. Fishermen in the Gulf of Mexico also must 
contend with a variety of bottom-types, large amounts of debris in 
certain areas, and high flow areas, especially near the Mississippi 
River. The straight-bar grid TED that was tested by NMFS in June 1996 
had a 2-inch (5.1-cm) bar spacing, and it exhibited some problems with 
turtle captures before modifications were made (see Gear Testing 
Results). There may be a higher proportion of small turtles, 
particularly juvenile Kemp's ridleys, in the Gulf than in the Atlantic, 
but juvenile ridley, loggerhead, and green turtles occur in the 
Atlantic shrimping grounds. Strandings suggest that shrimping in the 
Atlantic continues to impact these juvenile turtles, too.
    Comment 11: Some commenters from industry and environmental groups 
and state natural resource agencies suggested that, if restrictions to 
bottom-opening hard TEDs are necessary, the webbing flap over the 
escape opening be shortened to reduce sea turtle escape time and the 
possibility of entrapping a turtle when the TED rides on the sea floor. 
Some Georgia shrimpers stated that they already use bottom-opening hard 
TEDs with shortened flaps to allow large debris to drop out.
    Response: NMFS agrees. The June 1996 TED testing results showed 
that shortening the webbing flap is necessary for bottom-opening hard 
TEDs to achieve acceptable turtle capture rates and average turtle 
escape times. Additionally, the testing showed that turtle escape is 
still possible from a straight-bar TED with a shortened webbing flap, 
even when the TED is riding on the sea floor. Although there may be 
some concern among shrimpers about shrimp loss with a shortened webbing 
flap, NMFS believes that allowing the continued use of bottom-opening 
hard TEDs with a shortened webbing flap is responsive to the comments 
and preferences of many fishermen. This measure is necessary to ensure 
adequate turtle exclusion performance of bottom-opening hard TEDs. The 
current use of shortened webbing flaps in the industry indicates that 
shrimp-loss problems are not a major concern, at least in comparison 
with the desirability of excluding debris.
    Comment 12: Some commenters stated that the required use of top-
opening hard TEDs in the Atlantic SFSTCA would result in extensive 
damage to gear because top-opening, hard TEDs will become buried and 
cause the tailbag of the net to be torn off.
    Response: Reports of gear damage related to top-opening, hard TEDs 
have come mostly from shrimpers in the Atlantic. In some Atlantic 
shrimping areas, fishermen operate in very small areas and must turn 
their vessels tightly and frequently to work a given area. NMFS 
investigated the possibility that this fishing method may contribute to 
the reported problems. When a trawler conducts a very sharp turn, the 
trawls may come to a complete stop. Divers observed that top-opening 
TEDs, when not equipped with flotation, settled to touch the bottom 
when the trawl stopped. In a soft mud bottom, the TED may sink into the 
mud. When the trawl again takes the strain of the tow cable, there may 
be considerable drag and possible gear damage if the TED has become 
buried in sediments. The divers also observed that top-opening hard 
TEDs, when equipped with optional flotation, stayed well clear of the 
sea floor when the trawl stopped. NMFS recommends that fishermen using 
top-opening hard TEDs use flotation to minimize the possibility of 
damage to the TEDs and nets from contact with the sea floor.

Establishment of SFSTCAs

     Comment 13: Numerous comments were received regarding the 
geographical constructs and the need for the proposed SFSTCAS, or the 
alternative areas recommended in the LGL Report. These concerns, such 
as the need for including inshore waters of the Gulf of Mexico, or 
excluding Louisiana due to the lack of strandings, were addressed in 
the proposed rule and are not repeated here (61 FR 18102, April 24, 
1996, see comments 10 and 11). However, one commenter suggested that 
the Gulf SFSTCA should include waters out to 7 fathoms (9 m) to be 
consistent with Texas state regulations which prohibit nighttime 
shrimping out to 7 fathoms (9 m).
     Response: NMFS established the 10-nm (18.5 km) distance from shore 
to encompass important nearshore habitat for benthic immature and 
subadult sea turtles, particularly Kemp's ridleys. A standard distance 
from shore in the SFSTCAs also allows for consistency of application 
across state jurisdiction. Further, NMFS believes that a distance-from-
shore criterion is more easily enforced, since depth topography varies 
by location.
    Comment 14: Several commenters were concerned that some areas of 
high importance of sea turtles may have been inappropriately excluded 
from the SFSTCAs. They urged NMFS to increase enforcement efforts, 
shrimp trawler observers, and stranding coverage in areas adjacent to 
the SFSTCAs to determine whether enhanced sea turtle protections are 
also necessary outside of the SFSTCAs.
    Response: The proposed SFSTCAs were based on the importance of the 
areas for sea turtles in conjunction with the likelihood of negative 
interactions with heavy shrimp trawling activity. NMFS agrees that 
information from enforcement, observers, and strandings is useful for 
determining the potential level of turtle-shrimping interactions. NMFS 
considered all of these factors in determining the proposed SFSTCAs and 
does not anticipate that collection of

[[Page 66942]]

further information would change these decisions. Nonetheless, NMFS 
intends to maintain high enforcement efforts to improve the stranding 
monitoring network and to place observers aboard shrimp vessels, so 
that the incidental take of turtles in the shrimp fishery can be 
monitored. These actions have been requirements of the June 11, 1996, 
Opinion, and all subsequent Biological Opinions considering the shrimp 
fishery. These efforts will be directed both at the SFSTCAs and areas 
outside of the SFSTCAs.

Shrimp Industry Panel

    Comment 15: Although not a proposed regulatory measure, NMFS 
solicited comments on the establishment of a shrimp industry panel and 
specifically on methods to identify and select shrimp industry 
representatives to serve on the panel that would fairly reflect the 
interests of the diverse sections of the shrimp trawling fleets. 
Comments generally supported the establishment of a shrimp industry 
panel. However, some commenters were concerned that such a panel would 
be too narrowly focused, and that all stakeholders interested in 
conserving sea turtle populations should be included.
    Response: NMFS originally foresaw several roles for a shrimp 
industry panel, including review of information and recommendations 
regarding TED technical matters. The challenge of addressing ways to 
improve soft TEDs to increase turtle escapement has created a 
heightened need to address that issue specifically. NMFS intends to 
move quickly to establish a panel that would focus its efforts on 
improving or modifying soft TEDs. The panel's primary purposes would be 
to review existing information on soft TED performance, to provide 
recommendations and supply new information on possible solutions to 
identified problems, to examine testing results associated with new 
soft TED initiatives, and to communicate all relevant developments to 
the wider community of stakeholders with which individual panel members 
are associated.
    NMFS agrees with the commenters who felt that a broader 
constituency than just shrimp industry representatives should be 
included. To ensure the transparency, and the ultimate acceptance and 
success, of the intensive efforts to develop effective soft TEDs, 
representatives from the sea turtle conservation community should also 
be involved. Active participation from the shrimp industry, though, 
will likely be critical to produce the technical ideas and solutions 
that are necessary to improve soft TEDs. Gear experts, shrimp industry 
leaders, and environmental community members will be contacted and 
asked to participate in the panel. Panel members should have extensive 
contacts to their respective communities to facilitate the passage of 
information to all the stakeholders and to attract the greatest number 
of new ideas and potential solutions for consideration.
    A panel focussed entirely on soft TEDs is a narrower application 
than originally discussed in the proposed rule. No final decisions 
regarding the formation or implementation of a broader advisory panel 
are being made at this time, although the soft TED panel will likely 
provide valuable experience in the functioning of such a panel. Thus, 
NMFS will reserve response and consider all comments prior to any 
further actions on a broader shrimp industry advisory panel.

Changes to TED Requirements

    Comment 16: Numerous commenters from the shrimp industry objected 
to any changes to the present TED requirements whatsoever, irrespective 
of the specific measures of the proposed rule. They criticized NMFS for 
making frequent changes to the existing requirements. They stated that 
the changes antagonized fishermen and made them suspicious of the 
agency's intentions and the quality of data used in management 
decisions.
    Response: NMFS strives to avoid adverse effects on fishermen 
resulting from changes in regulations. NMFS also agrees that frequent 
changes to regulations are confusing and should be avoided. The last 
change to the general gear requirements was over 2 years ago, when 
fishermen using bottom-opening hard TEDs were required to attach 
flotation to the TEDs (59 FR 33447, June 29, 1994). Subsequently, 
temporary restrictions have been necessary in response to continued sea 
turtle mortality in areas of high shrimping effort (see Background). 
The commenters' objections to rule changes may, in part, result from 
frustration with the short notice provided and short duration of those 
temporary restrictions. NMFS believes that such temporary restrictions 
are better replaced by permanent measures that provide greater 
protection for sea turtles and greater certainty for fishermen. In the 
case of the present rulemaking, NMFS has attempted to inform and 
involve affected fishermen through extensive opportunities for public 
comment, informational meetings, and multiple public hearings and to 
improve the measures needed to protect sea turtles while minimizing the 
adverse impacts on shrimp fishermen. NMFS believes that the measures of 
this final rule will have a minimal impact on fishermen. Furthermore, 
delayed effective dates are being applied to the provisions in some 
areas to allow fishermen additional time to adapt to new requirements 
and to purchase any new gear as part of their regular maintenance and 
repair cycle and to allow additional time to develop effective soft 
TEDs.
    NMFS will continue its efforts to minimize the effects on fishermen 
as it fulfills its requirements to protect and recover endangered and 
threatened sea turtles. To the extent possible, NMFS will avoid 
frequent or repeated changes to the TED requirements. TED technology, 
however, is constantly evolving. Fishermen frequently report problems 
with TEDs or offer suggestions to improve the function of TEDs, and new 
information has arisen on the interaction between sea turtles and 
shrimp trawling. NMFS is constantly evaluating these problems, ideas, 
and new information. If changes to the TED requirements become 
necessary to improve the function of TEDs either for fishermen or to 
ensure adequate turtle exclusion rates, NMFS will implement those 
changes.
    At the present time, NMFS does foresee the possibility of 
additional changes to TED requirements. Information from observers and 
fishermen has identified an installation problem in which weedless-
style hard TEDs are sometimes backwards to the mouth of the trawl. 
Testing with small turtles has shown that TEDs with this installation 
problem do indeed entrap turtles. In addition, the turtle exclusion 
problems with some configurations of bottom-opening hard TEDs that were 
identified in the June 1996 testing may also need to be addressed in 
areas outside the SFSTCAs. NMFS anticipates that additional information 
will be developed and a proposed rule may be published addressing these 
two issues. Additionally, the development of improvements or 
modifications to soft TEDs that effectively exclude turtles will 
require amendments to the regulations to implement the changes.

Changes from the Proposed Rule to the Final Rule

Reduce the Size of Try Nets that are Exempt from TED Use

    The reduction in the size of try nets that are exempt from required 
TED use remains unchanged from the proposed rule. Specifically, only 
try nets with a headrope length not greater than 12 ft (3.6 m) and a 
footrope length not greater

[[Page 66943]]

than 15 ft (4.6 m) are exempt from the TED requirement. However, the 
effective date outside of the SFSTCAs has been extended from December 
31, 1996, to December 19, 1997. NMFS believes that the longer phase-in 
period will provide opportunity for NMFS to provide technology outreach 
to shrimpers to ensure that adoption of TEDs in larger try nets is 
accepted more readily in those areas where shrimpers have not 
previously operated under this requirement.

Eliminate Existing Soft TEDs as Approved TEDs and Eliminate the 
Provision of the Regulations Allowing Soft TEDs to be Approved

    The proposed rule called for a phase-out of the use of soft TEDs by 
December 31, 1996, and more immediately, a prohibition of their use in 
the proposed SFSTCAs. The final rule removes the approval of the 
Morrison TED, Parrish TED, Andrews TED, and Taylor TED, applicable 
December 19, 1997, except in the SFSTCAs where the use of all soft TEDs 
is prohibited, effective March 1, 1997. The removing of approval period 
for soft TEDs outside the SFSTCAs has been extended well beyond the 
proposed date of December 31, 1996, and will provide time for NMFS, in 
cooperation with gear experts, the shrimp industry, and the 
environmental community, to undertake initiatives to develop effective 
soft TEDs. Fishermen will also have greater opportunity to replace 
their existing gear and adapt to the use of hard grid TEDs. The final 
rule also addresses the need to provide immediate measures to reduce 
mortality in areas where they are most needed. The delayed effective 
date for the prohibitions on soft TEDs outside the SFSTCAs until 1 year 
after the publication of the final rule is also consistent with 
Congressional directives in the FY97 Appropriations Bill and will allow 
further testing and development of modified and improved soft TEDs in 
cooperation with the shrimp fishing industry prior to any prohibition 
of soft TED use.
    The proposed rule would also have eliminated the authority to test 
and approve new soft TED designs starting in 1997. In response to 
comments received, this final rule maintains the authority to test and 
approve new soft TED designs.

Enhancing TED Effectiveness in the SFSTCAs

    The prohibition on the use of soft TEDs and the reduction in the 
size of try nets that are exempt from TED requirements remain unchanged 
within the SFSTCAs. However, the proposed prohibition on bottom-opening 
hard grid TEDs is not implemented. Instead, two modifications to 
bottom-opening hard grid TED requirements are made: If the optional 
webbing flaps are installed, the flap must not extend beyond the 
posterior edge of the TED; and the angle of the deflector bars at the 
bottom of the TED must not exceed 45 deg., effective March 1, 1997. 
Further testing of single-grid hard TEDs has shown that these 
modifications provided adequate sea turtle exclusion and significantly 
reduced the average escape time of sea turtles (see Recent Gear Testing 
section).
    In summary, these modifications to the bottom-opening hard TED 
requirements allow such TEDs to approach the level of protection to sea 
turtles as that attributed to top-opening hard grid TEDs, which have 
excellent turtle exclusion rates and fast mean TED escape times.

Provisions of the Final Rule

    Based on the review of comments received during the public hearings 
and the comment period, new information provided in the TEWG Report, 
and further testing of gear types in the proposed measures (see Recent 
Gear Testing section), the final rule:
    1. Exempts from the TED use requirements try nets with a headrope 
length 12 ft (3.6 m) or less and a footrope length 15 ft (4.6 m) or 
less, applicable December 19, 1997.
    2. Removes the approval of the Morrison, Parrish, Andrews, and 
Taylor soft TEDs, applicable December 19, 1997.
    3. Removes the applicability of the two existing TED testing 
protocols to soft TED testing, but continues the authority to test and 
approve new TEDs.
    4. Establishes SFSTCAs in the northwestern Gulf of Mexico 
consisting of the offshore waters out to 10 nm (18.5 km) along the 
coasts of Louisiana and Texas from the Mississippi River South Pass 
(west of 89 deg.08.5' W. long.) to the U.S.-Mexican border, and in the 
Atlantic consisting of the inshore waters and offshore waters out to 10 
nm (18.5 km) along the coasts of Georgia and South Carolina from the 
Georgia-Florida border to the North Carolina-South Carolina border.
    5. Prohibits, within the SFSTCAs, the use of bottom-opening hard 
TEDs with a webbing flap that extends beyond the posterior edge of the 
TED or with an angle of the deflector bars greater than 45 deg., 
measured along the bottom-most 4 inches (10.2 cm) of each bar or, for 
TEDs in which the deflector bars are not attached to the bottom frame, 
along the imaginary lines through the bottom frame and the bottom end 
of each deflector bar, effective March 1, 1997.
    6. Prohibits, within SFSTCAs, the use of soft TEDs, effective March 
1, 1997.
    7. For vessels fishing within the SFSTCAs, exempts from TED use 
requirements try nets with a headrope length not greater than 12 ft 
(3.6 m) and a footrope length not greater than 15 ft (4.6 m), effective 
March 1, 1997.

Classification

    This action has been determined to be not significant for purposes 
of E.O. 12866.
    The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, prepared an EA/RIR 
for this proposed rule and copies are available (see ADDRESSES).
    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 as 
follows:

    I certify that the attached proposed rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities because the provisions of the proposed rule would impose 
only a minor economic burden on shrimp fishermen. The removal of 
soft TEDs from the list of approved TEDs is delayed until December 
31, 1996. Since soft TEDs have a life-span of only about 1 year, 
shrimp fishermen using soft TEDs will not bear any additional costs, 
beyond normal gear replacement costs. The reduction in allowable 
sized of try nets that are exempt from TED requirements is also 
delayed until December 31, 1996. Fishermen using larger try nets 
will have ample time to come into compliance with this change. For 
many, normal gear replacement cycles will mean that no additional 
financial burden is assumed.
    The cost of purchasing a 12-foot try net is approximately $100, 
or the cost of purchasing a hard TED is approximately $200. Existing 
large try nets may also be modified to reduce their size by the 
fisherman. The implementation of gear requirement changes in the 
SFSTCAs is proposed to occur on a more rapid schedule than the 
requirements outside the SFSTCA because of the more critical need to 
protect sea turtles and manage shrimp trawl-sea turtle interactions 
in those areas. The impact of this faster schedule on small 
businesses is expected to be small, though. The proposed SFSTCAs in 
the Gulf area was either included in the March 14, 1995, Shrimp 
Fishery Emergency Response Plan's (ERP) interim special management 
areas in 1995 as potentially subject to gear restrictions or were 
actually included in gear restrictions implemented during 1995 in 
response to sea turtle mortality emergencies. Other than inshore 
waters, the Atlantic area proposed SFSTCA also was subject to gear 
restrictions in 1995. Shrimp trawlers subject to any gear 
restrictions in 1995 will already have been required to purchase 
hard TEDs and reduce

[[Page 66944]]

the size of their try nets or install hard TEDs in their try nets. 
No additional burden will be imposed on those fishermen to acquire 
new gear. In the Gulf SFSTCA, Zones 13-16 were not subject to gear 
restrictions, but fishermen in that area were notified of potential 
additional gear requirements as specified in the ERP. Nearshore 
fishermen in those zones, however, reportedly were already using 
primarily hard TEDs, and therefore the prohibition of soft TED use 
should affect only a small number of fishermen. Bottom-opening hard 
TEDs can be converted to top-opening in approximately one hour with 
an estimated cost of approximately $20 of labor per net.

    Accordingly, under section 603(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act, an initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis was not prepared.

List of Subjects

50 CFR Part 217

    Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Fish, Imports, Marine 
mammals, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

50 CFR Part 227

    Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Marine 
mammals, Transportation.

    Dated: December 13, 1996.
Rolland A. Schmitten,
Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries 
Service.
    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR parts 217 and 227 
are amended as follows:

PART 217--GENERAL PROVISIONS

    1. The authority citation for part 217 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; and 16 U.S.C. 742a et seq., 
unless otherwise noted.

    2. In Sec. 217.12, the definitions for ``Atlantic Shrimp Fishery-
Sea Turtle Conservation Area'' and ``Gulf Shrimp Fishery-Sea Turtle 
Conservation Area'' are added, in alphabetical order, to read as 
follows:


Sec. 217.12  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Atlantic Shrimp Fishery-Sea Turtle Conservation Area (Atlantic 
SFSTCA) means the inshore and offshore waters extending to 10 nautical 
miles (18.5 km) offshore along the coast of the States of Georgia and 
South Carolina from the Georgia-Florida border (defined as the line 
along 30 deg.42'45.6'' N. lat.) to the North Carolina-South Carolina 
border (defined as the line extending in a direction of 135 deg.34'55'' 
from true north from the North Carolina-South Carolina land boundary, 
as marked by the border station on Bird Island at 33 deg. 51'07.9'' N. 
lat., 078 deg.32'32.6'' W. long.).
* * * * *
    Gulf Shrimp Fishery-Sea Turtle Conservation Area (Gulf SFSTCA) 
means the offshore waters extending to 10 nautical miles (18.5 km) 
offshore along the coast of the States of Texas and Louisiana from the 
South Pass of the Mississippi River (west of 89 deg.32'32.6''08.5' W. 
long.) to the U.S.-Mexican border.
* * * * *

PART 227--THREATENED FISH AND WILDLIFE

    3. The authority citation for part 227 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.

    4. In Sec. 227.72, paragraphs (e)(2)(ii)(B)(1), (e)(4)(i)(C), 
(e)(4)(iii) introductory text, (e)(4)(iv)(C), and (e)(5)(i) are revised 
to read as follows:


Sec. 227.72  Exceptions to prohibitions.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (B) * * *
    (1) (i) For any shrimp trawler fishing in the Gulf SFSTCA or the 
Atlantic SFSTCA, a single test net (try net) with a headrope length of 
12 ft (3.6 m) or less and with a footrope length of 15 ft (4.6 m) or 
less, if it is either pulled immediately in front of another net or is 
not connected to another net in any way, if no more than one test net 
is used at a time, and if it is not towed as a primary net.
    (ii) Prior to December 19, 1997, in areas other than the Gulf 
SFSTCA or the Atlantic SFSTCA, a single test net (try net) with a 
headrope length of 20 ft (6.1 m) or less, if it is either pulled 
immediately in front of another net or is not connected to another net 
in any way, if no more than one test net is used at a time, and if it 
is not towed as a primary net.
    (iii) Applicable after December 19, 1997, a single test net (try 
net) with a headrope length of 12 ft (3.6 m) or less and with a 
footrope length of 15 ft (4.6 m) or less, if it is either pulled 
immediately in front of another net or is not connected to another net 
in any way, if no more than one test net is used at a time, and if it 
is not towed as a primary net.
* * * * *
    (4) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (C) Angle of deflector bars. (1) Except as provided in paragraph 
(e)(4)(i)(C)(2) of this section, the angle of the deflector bars must 
be between 30 deg. and 55 deg. from the normal, horizontal flow through 
the interior of the trawl.
    (2) For any shrimp trawler fishing in the Gulf SFSTCA or the 
Atlantic SFSTCA, a hard TED with the position of the escape opening at 
the bottom of the net when the net is in its deployed position, the 
angle of the deflector bars from the normal, horizontal flow through 
the interior of the trawl, at any point, must not exceed 55 deg., and:
    (i) If the deflector bars that run from top to bottom are attached 
to the bottom frame of the TED, the angle of the bottom-most 4 inches 
(10.2 cm) of each deflector bar, measured along the bars, must not 
exceed 45 deg. (Figures 14a and 14b);
    (ii) If the deflector bars that run from top to bottom are not 
attached to the bottom frame of the TED, the angle of the imaginary 
lines connecting the bottom frame of the TED to the bottom end of each 
deflector bar which runs from top to bottom must not exceed 45 deg. 
(Figure 15).
* * * * *
    (iii) Soft TEDs. Soft TEDs are TEDs with deflector panels made from 
polypropylene or polyethylene netting. For any shrimp trawler fishing 
in the Gulf SFSTCA and the Atlantic SFSTCA, soft TEDs are not approved 
TEDs. Prior to December 19, 1997, in areas other than the Gulf SFSTCA 
and Atlantic SFSTCA, the following soft TEDs are approved TEDs:
* * * * *
    (iv) * * *
    (C) Webbing flap. A webbing flap may be used to cover the escape 
opening if: No device holds it closed or otherwise restricts the 
opening; it is constructed of webbing with a stretched mesh size no 
larger than 1 5/8 inches (4.1 cm); it lies on the outside of the trawl; 
it is attached along its entire forward edge forward of the escape 
opening; it is not attached on the sides beyond the row of meshes that 
lies 6 inches (15.2 cm) behind the posterior edge of the grid; and it 
does not extend more than 24 inches (61.0 cm) beyond the posterior edge 
of the grid, except for trawlers fishing in the Gulf SFSTCA or Atlantic 
SFSTCA with a hard TED with the position of the escape opening at the 
bottom of the net when the net is in its deployed position, in which 
case the webbing flap must not extend beyond the posterior edge of the 
grid.
* * * * *
    (5)(i) Revision of generic design criteria, and approval of TEDs, 
of allowable modifications of hard TEDs, and of special hard TEDs. The 
Assistant

[[Page 66945]]

Administrator may revise the generic design criteria for hard TEDs set 
forth in paragraph (e)(4)(i) of this section, may approve special hard 
TEDs in addition to those listed in paragraph (e)(4)(ii) of this 
section, may approve allowable modifications to hard TEDs in addition 
to those authorized in paragraph (e)(4)(iv) of this section, or may 
approve other TEDs, by regulatory amendment, if, according to a NMFS-
approved scientific protocol, the TED demonstrates a sea turtle 
exclusion rate of 97 percent or greater (or an equivalent exclusion 
rate). Two such protocols have been published by NMFS (52 FR 24262, 
June 29, 1987; and 55 FR 41092, October 9, 1990) and will be used only 
for testing relating to hard TED designs. Testing under any protocol 
must be conducted under the supervision of the Assistant Administrator, 
and shall be subject to all such conditions and restrictions as the 
Assistant Administrator deems appropriate. Any person wishing to 
participate in such testing should contact the Director, Southeast 
Fisheries Science Center, NMFS.
* * * * *
    5. Figures 14a, 14b, and 15 to part 227 are added to read as 
follows:

[[Page 66946]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19DE96.002



[[Page 66947]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19DE96.003



[FR Doc. 96-32123 Filed 12-13-96; 5:07 pm]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F