[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 176 (Friday, September 11, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 48670-48690]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-24306]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 229

[Docket No. 970129015-8157-07; I.D. 042597B]
RIN 0648-AI84


Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental to Commercial Fishing 
Operations; Harbor Porpoise Take Reduction Plan Regulations

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

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of availability of proposed take 
reduction plan.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS announces the availability of a proposed harbor porpoise 
take reduction plan (HPTRP) to reduce the bycatch of harbor porpoise 
(Phocoena phocoena) in gillnet fisheries throughout the stock's U.S. 
range. NMFS also proposes regulations to implement the HPTRP. The 
proposed plan, including a discussion of the recommendations of the 
Gulf of Maine Take Reduction Team (GOMTRT) and the Mid-Atlantic Take 
Reduction Team (MATRT), is contained in the HPTRP/Environmental 
Assessment/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (HPTRP/EA/IRFA), 
available upon request (see addresses below). Changes to the 
recommendations of the GOMTRT and the MATRT are described within this 
document. This action replaces the proposed rule issued on August 13, 
1997 (62 FR 43302).
    The potential biological removal (PBR) level for Gulf of Maine 
harbor porpoise throughout their range is 483 animals (62 FR 3005, 
January 21, 1997). The incidental bycatch of harbor porpoise in the 
Gulf of Maine (GOM) and Mid-Atlantic gillnet fisheries exceeds the PBR 
level. The proposed HPTRP would use a wide range of management measures 
to reduce the bycatch and mortality of harbor porpoise. In the GOM, the 
HPTRP proposes time and area closures and time/area periods during 
which pinger use would be required in the Northeast, Mid-coast, 
Massachusetts Bay, Cape Cod South and Offshore Closure Areas. In the 
Mid-Atlantic area, the HPTRP proposes time/area closures and 
modifications to gear characteristics, including floatline length, 
twine size, tie downs, and number of nets, in the large mesh and small 
mesh fisheries. NMFS seeks comment on the proposed HPTRP/EA/IRFA, and 
the proposed regulations to implement the plan.

DATES: Comments due October 13, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the draft plan prepared by the GOMTRT, the final 
report from the MATRT and the HPTRP/EA/IRFA may be obtained from Donna 
Wieting, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries 
Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910-3226.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donna Wieting, NMFS, 301-713-2322 or 
Laurie Allen, NMFS, Northeast Region, 978-281-9291.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 1994 amendments to the Marine Mammal 
Protection Act (MMPA) require the preparation and implementation of 
TRPs for strategic marine mammal stocks that interact with Category I 
or II fisheries. A Category I fishery is a fishery that has frequent 
incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals. A Category 
II fishery is a fishery that has occasional incidental mortality and 
serious injury of marine mammals. A Category III fishery is a fishery 
that has a remote likelihood of causing incidental mortality or serious 
injury of marine mammals.
    This proposed rule addresses preparation and implementation of a 
take reduction plan (TRP) for harbor porpoise, a strategic marine 
mammal stock, that interacts with the NE multispecies gillnet fishery 
and with the Mid-Atlantic coastal gillnet fisheries. The 1996 Stock 
Assessment Report (SAR) (Waring et al., 1997) states that harbor 
porpoise bycatch has been observed by the NMFS Sea Sampling program in 
the following fisheries: (1) the Northeast (NE) multispecies sink 
gillnet, (2) the mid-Atlantic coastal gillnet, (3) the Atlantic drift 
gillnet, (4) the North Atlantic bottom trawl fisheries, and (5) the 
Canadian Bay of Fundy sink gillnet fishery. The fisheries of greatest 
concern, and the subject of this TRP, are the NE multispecies sink 
gillnet fishery (Category I), and the Mid-Atlantic coastal gillnet 
fishery (Category II).
    The Atlantic drift gillnet fishery, a Category I fishery, is being 
addressed by the Atlantic Offshore Cetacean Take Reduction Team 
(AOCTRT). The North Atlantic bottom trawl fishery is a Category III 
fishery and is not the subject of take reduction efforts at this time. 
The Canadian sink gillnet fishery

[[Page 48671]]

takes approximately 100 harbor porpoise per year. This proposed rule is 
expected to reduce harbor porpoise bycatch below the PBR level, 
including the 100 takes by the Canadian fishery.
    The NE multispecies sink gillnet fishery comprises the majority of 
the overall multispecies gillnet activity in New England. Harbor 
porpoise may, however, interact with other gillnet fisheries capable of 
capturing multispecies. Additionally, new non-sink gillnet fisheries 
could be introduced into harbor porpoise conservation areas. Therefore, 
this proposed rule would apply to all gillnets in New England capable 
of catching NE multispecies.
    Under the 1994 Amendments to the MMPA, the short-term goal of a TRP 
is to reduce, within 6 months of its implementation, the mortality and 
serious injury of strategic stock(s) incidentally taken in the course 
of commercial fishing operations to less than the PBR level established 
for those stock(s). The PBR level is the maximum number of animals, not 
including natural mortalities, that may be annually removed from a 
marine mammal stock without compromising the ability of that stock to 
reach or maintain its optimum population level. The goal of this TRP is 
to bring the combined incidental take of the GOM harbor porpoise stock 
below the PBR level for all U.S. fisheries that interact with that 
stock.
    NMFS convened the GOMTRT in February 1996. The goal of the GOMTRT 
was to develop a consensus draft TRP to reduce the incidental take of 
harbor porpoise in sink gillnets in the GOM to the PBR level for that 
stock within 6 months of the TRP's implementation. NMFS limited the 
geographic scope of the 1996 team to focus only on bycatch off New 
England's coast (Maine to Rhode Island). The reason for this approach 
was because the proportion of incidental take in the NE multispecies 
sink gillnet fishery constituted the majority of the total fishery-
related mortality in the United States and because of uncertainty about 
the extent of fisheries interactions south of New England. Data on the 
bycatch of harbor porpoise in the Mid-Atlantic were not available until 
1996 due to low observer effort prior to 1995 and the lag in 
availability of appropriate effort data to estimate bycatch. The GOMTRT 
convened with the understanding that a separate take reduction team 
would be convened to address the harbor porpoise bycatch problem in the 
Mid-Atlantic (discussed here).
    The GOMTRT included representatives of the NE multispecies sink 
gillnet fishery, NMFS, state marine resource management agencies, the 
New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC), environmental 
organizations, and academic and scientific organizations. The GOMTRT 
met five times between February and July 1996 and submitted a consensus 
draft TRP (the GOMTRP) to NMFS in August 1996.
    Soon after the GOMTRT submitted a draft TRP, the NEFMC enacted 
Framework Adjustment 19 (61 FR 55774, October 29, 1996) to the NE 
Multispecies Fishery Management Plan (FMP) which changed the time and 
area of the NE Multispecies FMP Mid-Coast Closure Area within the GOM 
and established an exemption to allow sink gillnet vessels to fish the 
reopened area when utilizing pingers on their nets. Based on this 
action, NMFS modified the draft TRP submitted by the GOMTRT to be 
consistent with Framework Adjustment 19 and, on August 13, 1997, 
published a proposed rule to implement a TRP for harbor porpoise in the 
GOM (GOMTRP) (62 FR 43302, August 13, 1997).
    NMFS convened the MATRT in February 1997 to address the incidental 
bycatch of harbor porpoise in Mid-Atlantic gillnet fisheries (from New 
York through North Carolina). The MATRT included representatives of the 
Mid-Atlantic coastal gillnet fisheries, NMFS, state marine resource 
management agencies, the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, the 
NEFMC, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC), 
environmental organizations, and academic and scientific organizations. 
The MATRT did not reach consensus on all issues discussed. The MATRT 
submitted a report to NMFS on August 25, 1997 which included both 
consensus and non-consensus recommendations. NMFS has not previously 
published a proposed rule to implement a Mid-Atlantic Take Reduction 
Plan (MATRP).

Harbor Porpoise Take Reduction Plan

    This proposed rule would implement the HPTRP for the GOM and Mid-
Atlantic geographic areas. This HPTRP is based in large part on 
recommendations in the draft GOMTRP and the MATRT Report. This proposed 
rule replaces the previous proposed rule published to implement the 
GOMTRP (62 FR 43302, August 13, 1997). The GOMTRP proposed rule is 
being replaced because three developments have occurred since the 
publication of that rule. First, new bycatch information became 
available which indicated that significant changes were needed in the 
GOMTRP to achieve the PBR level for harbor porpoise. NMFS reconvened 
the GOMTRT on December 16 and 17, 1997, to discuss this new information 
and to provide additional comments to NMFS. Secondly, Framework 25 to 
the NE Multispecies FMP, published on March 31, 1998 (63 FR 15326), was 
implemented on May 1, 1998; this framework implements gillnet fishing 
closures throughout the GOM to conserve cod (Gadus morhua). Some of 
these closures may indirectly provide harbor porpoise conservation. 
Thirdly, the MATRT submitted its report to NMFS which presented new 
information on the level of harbor porpoise bycatch in the mid-Atlantic 
region.
    The combination of these actions led NMFS to integrate the 
initially separate plans into one comprehensive TRP. Since the revised 
plan is substantially different from the 1997 GOMTRP, NMFS is replacing 
the 1997 proposed rule with this proposed rule.

Stock Assessment

    The range of the harbor porpoise extends from the Bay of Fundy, 
Canada, to the southern border of North Carolina. The cumulative levels 
of incidental mortality and serious injury of harbor porpoise occurring 
in the New England, Mid-Atlantic, and Canadian gillnet fisheries exceed 
the PBR level for this stock.
    The PBR level for harbor porpoise is 483 animals per year. This is 
a strategic stock because average annual fishery-related mortality and 
serious injury exceeds the PBR level. There are insufficient data to 
determine population trends for this species. NMFS proposed listing the 
GOM harbor porpoise as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (58 
FR 3108, January 7, 1993), but no final action has been taken on that 
proposal.

Incidental Takes by Fishery

    The estimated total annual average mortality from New England and 
Mid-Atlantic gillnet fisheries is 2,040. This estimate is based on a 5-
year (1990-1995) average mortality estimate of 1,833 (Waring et al., 
1997) for the GOM and based on preliminary analysis of 1995 and 1996 
data from the Mid-Atlantic of 207 animals (Palka, unpublished data).
    The NE multispecies sink gillnet fishery sets nets on the ocean 
bottom, where they are fixed by anchors. These nets are primarily used 
to catch groundfish (cod, haddock, hake, pollock and flounders), 
monkfish, and dogfish.

[[Page 48672]]

The fishery primarily consists of small vessels, (about 30-50 feet (10-
17 meters) in length), that operate from numerous ports throughout New 
England. A vessel may fish between 40 and 200 nets, depending on target 
species. Nets are usually approximately 300 feet (92 meters) long and 
are tied together in strings of one to 30 nets.
    The Mid-Atlantic coastal gillnet fishery comprises several gillnet 
fisheries, which operate from New York to North Carolina. The mesh 
sizes range from 2.5 to 12 inches (6.35 to 30.48 cm), with the smallest 
mesh sizes used to capture small fish, such as spot and shad. Medium 
mesh sizes are used to capture weakfish, striped bass, spiny dogfish, 
and bluefish. The largest mesh sizes are used for Atlantic sturgeon and 
monkfish. Observer coverage of the Mid-Atlantic coastal gillnet fishery 
was initiated by the Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) Sea 
Sampling Program in July 1993.

HPTRP: Gulf of Maine Component

    The GOM portion of the HPTRP would govern and pertain to all 
fishing with sink gillnets and other gillnets capable of catching 
multispecies, in the inshore and offshore waters of New England, from 
Maine through Rhode Island, east of 72 deg.30' W. longitude.
    NMFS proposes a schedule of periods and areas which would be closed 
to multispecies gillnet fishing unless pingers are employed in the 
prescribed manner (Table 1). Some areas are total fishery closures 
where no fishing is allowed. In all closed areas, where pingers are 
required, vessel operators must complete training in pinger use and 
have a valid pinger training certificate on board the vessel.

    Table 1.--Gulf of Maine Time/Area Closures to Gillnet Fishing and   
            Periods During Which Pinger Use Would Be Required           
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Northeast Area:                                                         
  August 15-September 13--Closed.                                       
Mid-Coast Area:                                                         
  September 15-May 31--Closed, gillnet with pingers allowed.            
Massachusetts Bay Area:                                                 
  February 1-28/29--Closed, gillnet with pingers allowed.               
  March 1-31--Closed                                                    
  April 1-May 31--Closed, gillnet with pingers allowed.                 
Cape Cod South Area:                                                    
  September 15-February 28/29--Closed, gillnet with pingers allowed.    
  March 1-31--Closed                                                    
  April 1-30--Closed, gillnet with pingers allowed.                     
Offshore Area:                                                          
  September 15-May 31--Closed, gillnet with pingers allowed.            
Cashes Ledge Area:                                                      
  February 1-28/29--Closed                                              
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discussion of the Gulf of Maine Component

    NMFS determined that the August 13, 1997, proposed rule (62 FR 
43302) would not adequately reduce harbor porpoise bycatch in the GOM. 
The results of the new GOM bycatch estimates presented at the December 
16-17, 1997 GOMTRT meeting suggest that: (1) bycatch reduction is being 
achieved in the Mid-Coast and Northern Maine closure areas; (2) bycatch 
in 1997 was greater than in 1996 in the Massachusetts Bay and the Cape 
Cod South areas; (3) bycatch offshore was noted in 1996 and 1997; 
however, it is difficult to compare these data with years prior to 
1996, since the offshore fishery had very little observer coverage in 
those years; (4) although bycatch reduction is occurring in specific 
areas and times, the PBR level is not being achieved overall; and (5) 
the August 13, 1997, proposed rule to implement the GOMTRP is unlikely 
to achieve the PBR level. Additionally, Framework 25 to the NE 
Multispecies FMP has significantly changed the management measures that 
are implemented under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 
Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) to protect GOM cod. Existing 
closures for marine mammals (which were a key part of the GOMTRP) and 
Framework 25 closure periods partially overlap and result in a very 
complex system of closures (see Figure 1).

BILLING CODE 3510-22-P

[[Page 48673]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11SE98.029



BILLING CODE 3510-22-C

[[Page 48674]]

    Figure 1 illustrates the change the ``rolling closure'' for cod 
conservation makes to current marine mammal closure boundaries and 
times in the GOM. The entire old Massachusetts Bay and Mid-Coast 
Closure Areas would be divided into four approximately even areas.
    The Massachusetts Bay Closure Area would not change on the northern 
boundary but would be larger to the east; it would still be closed 
March 1-31. The Mid-Coast Closure Area would then be closed completely 
in relatively equal sections, Inshore Closure Area II (April), Inshore 
Closure Area III (May), and Inshore Closure Area IV (June). Previously, 
the entire shaded area labeled ``Mid-Coast'' was closed May 10-30 for 
NE Multispecies FMP concerns and March 25-April 25 for harbor porpoise 
conservation. Under this proposed rule, the boundary of the Mid-Coast 
Closure Area would not change, with the exception of a small area just 
east of Inshore Closure Area III, but pingers would be allowed.
    The Inshore Area closures provide some protection for harbor 
porpoise in Areas II and III; however, the closure in Area IV is 
relatively insignificant for reducing bycatch of harbor porpoise due to 
the timing of the measures. A year round closure of parts of Jeffreys 
Ledge and Stellwagen Bank (Western GOM area closure) has been added by 
Framework 25 to the NE Multispecies FMP and it also provides protection 
for harbor porpoise. The northeast closure area remains unchanged for 
either purpose.
    Overall, NMFS expects that these proposed HPTRP implementing 
regulations would reduce harbor porpoise bycatch from the current level 
of approximately 1,833 animals per year in the Gulf of Maine area to 
309 animals per year.

HPTRP: Mid-Atlantic Component

    The Mid-Atlantic portion of the HPTRP would govern and pertain to 
all fishing with gillnets in the inshore and offshore waters of the 
Mid-Atlantic west of 72 deg.30' W. longitude to the Mid-Atlantic 
shoreline from NY to NC, with exemptions inshore of the first bridge 
over embayments and other similar areas as specified by the proposed 
regulations.
    Tables 2 and 3 set forth management measures for large mesh and 
small mesh gillnet fisheries in the Mid-Atlantic. Separate gear 
requirements are specified for large mesh (7 inches (17.78cm) to 18 
inches (45.72cm)) and small mesh gear (less than 7 inches (17.78 cm)). 
There remain some areas that are total closures where no fishing is 
allowed at all. The effective period for the Mid-Atlantic Component of 
the HPTRP is:
     New Jersey waters, and U.S. waters off New Jersey out to 
72 deg.30' W. longitude offshore--January 1 through April 30
     Southern Mid-Atlantic (MD, DE, VA, NC) and U.S. waters off 
the southern Mid-Atlantic out to 72 deg.30' W. longitude offshore--
February 1 through April 30.

 Table 2.--Management Measures for the Large Mesh Gillnet Fishery \1\ in
                            the Mid-Atlantic                            
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Floatline Length:                                                       
    New Jersey Mudhole...............  Less than or equal to 3,900 ft   
                                        (1188.7 m).                     
    New Jersey Waters (excluding       Less than or equal to 4,800 ft   
     Mudhole).                          (1463.0 m).                     
    Southern Mid-Atlantic............  Less than or equal to 3,900 feet 
                                        (1188.7 m).                     
Twine Size:                                                             
    All Mid-Atlantic Waters..........  Greater than or equal to .90 mm  
                                        (.035 inches).                  
Tie Downs:                                                              
    All Mid-Atlantic Waters..........  Required.                        
Net Cap:                                                                
    All Mid-Atlantic Waters..........  80 nets \2\ (nets are 300 ft     
                                        (91.4 m) long).                 
Time/Area Closures:                                                     
    New Jersey waters out to 72        Closed from April 1-April 20.    
     deg.30' W. longitude offshore                                      
     (including the Mudhole).                                           
    New Jersey Mudhole...............  Closed from February 15-March 15.
    Southern Mid-Atlantic waters (MD,  Closed from February 15-March 15.
     DE, VA, NC) out to 72 deg.30' W.                                   
     longitude offshore.                                                
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes gillnet with mesh size of 7 inches (17.78cm) to 18 inches  
  (45.72cm).                                                            
\2\ Requires all nets to be tagged by January 01, 2000.                 


 Table 3.--Management Measures for the Small Mesh Gillnet Fishery \3\ in
                            the Mid-Atlantic                            
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Floatline Length:                                                       
    New Jersey waters--less than or equal to 3,000 feet (914.4 m)       
     Southern Mid-Atlantic waters--less than or equal to 2,118 feet     
     (645.6 m).                                                         
Twine Size (applies only to mesh sizes greater than 4 inches (10.2 cm)):
 greater than or equal to .81 mm (.091 inches) in all Mid-Atlantic      
 waters.                                                                
Net Cap: 45 nets \4\ (nets are 300 feet (91.4 m) long) in all Mid-      
 Atlantic waters.                                                       
Time/Area Closures: New Jersey Mudhole Closed from February 15--March   
 15.                                                                    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Includes gillnet with mesh size of less than 7 inches (17.78cm).    
\4\ Requires all nets to be tagged by January 01, 2000.                 

    The New Jersey Mudhole is defined as an area bounded as follows: 
from the point 40 deg.30' N. latitude where it intersects with the 
shoreline of New Jersey east to its intersection with 73 deg.20' W. 
longitude, then south to its intersection with 40 deg.05' N. latitude, 
then west to its intersection with the shoreline of New Jersey.

Discussion of the Mid-Atlantic Component

    The Mid-Atlantic portion of the plan divides gillnet activity into 
large and small mesh categories and requires gear modifications for 
those mesh categories based on observer data. Observer data showed 
patterns or trends where reduced bycatch might be achieved if certain 
combinations of gear characteristics were used. The gear 
characteristics that demonstrated the most potential for bycatch 
reduction in the large mesh and small mesh fisheries were floatline 
length, twine size, tie downs and soak time. There are no proposed 
measures to reduce soak time because this measure is very difficult to

[[Page 48675]]

enforce. Since NMFS believes that the combination of gear modifications 
and time/area closures will achieve the PBR goal, soak time is not 
proposed as a management measure.
    None of the gear characteristics alone were strongly correlated 
with reduced bycatch, therefore a number of measures were combined to 
achieve the bycatch reduction goal. Since these measures would be 
ineffective if effort increases, a net cap or net limit is proposed to 
keep effort at current levels.
    Additionally, the proposed rule sets forth a schedule of fishery 
closures in areas and at times most closely linked with high harbor 
porpoise bycatch based on the observer data. NMFS agreed with the MATRT 
that closures were essential to achieving the PBR level given that the 
correlation between gear modifications and specific levels of reduced 
bycatch is not clear.
    The small mesh and large mesh categories are specifically designed 
to exclude both the large mesh pelagic fishery for swordfish, tuna, and 
shark (greater than 18 inches (45.7 cm)) and, for some gear 
modifications, the very small mesh gear that is commonly used close to 
shore (less than 4 inches (10.16 cm)). The gear modifications include 
twine size specifications, net caps, floatline length limits, tie-down 
specifications and net panel length limits. The large mesh pelagic 
drift gillnet fishery (Category I fishery) is not addressed in this 
rule because it is being addressed by the AOCTRT. The inshore fishery, 
which would include very small mesh, is not subject to this rule 
because observer data is inadequate at this time to determine the 
expected take in the inshore fishery. The proposed rule would 
completely close the large mesh gillnet fishery for three periods and 
the small mesh gillnet fishery for one period. The proposed TRP would 
prohibit tie-downs in the small mesh gillnet category to prevent 
fishers from effectively fishing for certain species, e.g., monkfish, 
using smaller mesh during the closed period for large mesh. This 
measure is expected to avoid the potential for effort shifts.
    This component of the plan differs from the GOM component because 
rather than using a series of time and areas closed to fishing and 
times and areas where acoustic deterrents are required, the Mid-
Atlantic portion requires a suite of gear modifications. The 
distinction in management measures between the two regions is 
appropriate in this case for a number of reasons. The regions differ 
markedly in stages of development with regard to harbor porpoise 
conservation. Whereas the GOMTRT has been meeting and proposing various 
bycatch reduction measures for the GOM for many years, the MATRT has 
only met in the last two years. The GOMTRT proposed a number of 
measures initially which did not include mandated pinger use prior to 
the current recommendation. Based on new information, those measures 
were determined to be unsuccessful in achieving the PBR level. With 
regard to the use of pingers as an appropriate management measure in 
the GOM, no data exist to support other options, except for total 
closure to sink gillnet fishing. In the Mid-Atlantic, data indicated 
other options in the form of gear modifications that might be 
successful in reducing bycatch without some of the uncertainties 
surrounding widespread pinger use.
    For the Mid-Atlantic area, the HPTRP would institute the first set 
of management measures to reduce harbor porpoise bycatch in that 
region. Since a number of options are available which may be 
successful, NMFS would implement non-acoustic measures before proposing 
pinger testing. Additionally, the MATRT did not fully support a pinger 
experiment in the Mid-Atlantic area at this time. The gear 
modifications and time/area closures recommended by the MATRT and 
proposed in this proposed rule are expected to be sufficient to reduce 
the incidental mortality of harbor porpoise from approximately 207 
animals per year to less than 50 animals per year in the Mid-Atlantic 
area. Non-Regulatory Components of the HPTRP
    In addition to recommending regulatory measures, both the GOMTRT 
and the MATRT recommended certain non-regulatory measures. The GOMTRT 
provided specific recommendations at the December 1997 meeting upon 
which its acceptance of more widespread pinger use and closures was 
contingent. These recommendations included the need for: (1) an 
assessment of pingers on habituation and displacement of harbor 
porpoise, and long term ecosystem impacts, (2) a census of the gillnet 
fleet, (3) investigation of funding for pinger technology development 
and purchase, (4) development and implementation of a training and 
certification program for fishers that will use pingers, and (5) 
additional analytical support for NMFS to ensure the progress of the 
plan's effectiveness can be adequately monitored. These components are 
part of the proposed HPTRP. A specific discussion of these 
recommendations and NMFS'' response to the recommendations are 
contained in the HPTRP/EA/IRFA. The following summarizes NMFS efforts 
to address the concerns raised by the GOMTRT:
    (1) A study to evaluate the habituation and displacement question 
is already funded and underway. As part of the HPTRP, NMFS is 
developing a research plan to assess long-term ecosystem impacts from 
widespread use of pingers.
    (2) As part of monitoring strategy for the HPTRP, NMFS is working 
with the ASMFC on the Atlantic Coastal Cooperative Statistics Program 
(ACCSP) in order to provide managers with more timely bycatch and 
fisheries information on the Atlantic Coast. Meanwhile, NMFS is 
continuing to look for ways to improve data collection efforts within 
the current system.
    (3) NMFS is investigating options for providing support to fishers 
for pinger technology.
    (4) The proposed rule would require all fishers who wish to use 
pingers in the closed areas to attend training and obtain 
certification. This certification program would not only provide 
training in technical aspects of pinger use, but also provide 
information on the bycatch problem and the need for fishers to use 
pinger technology properly to meet bycatch reduction objectives. NMFS 
is investigating the best method of delivering this program to fishers.
    (5) NMFS will consider the GOMTRT's recommendation for analytical 
resources during normal funding and staffing allocation discussions in 
light of other agency responsibilities.
    The MATRT made several recommendations that were considered 
important in achieving the long-term goals for bycatch reduction in the 
Mid-Atlantic. The non-regulatory measures recommended by the team 
primarily focus on NMFS' long-term research, monitoring, and management 
objectives.
    The MATRT recommended that NMFS obtain a characterization of winter 
coastal gillnet and small boat fisheries and to designate observer 
coverage accordingly.
    NMFS has proposed to expand its observer coverage of the Mid-
Atlantic fisheries in 1998 to obtain a better characterization of other 
coastal fisheries to ensure observer coverage is representative of 
actual fishing effort.
    The MATRT recommended that an outreach program be conducted to 
inform fishers of both new and existing regulations regarding 
incidental takes in their fisheries. The MATRT believes that these 
educational efforts should, if possible, be specifically directed 
toward those fishers using the fishing gear and/or practices that have 
higher levels of harbor porpoise bycatch.
    NMFS agrees. The HPTRP provides for voluntary skipper education

[[Page 48676]]

workshops. Additionally, NMFS plans to prepare educational materials 
which will describe the take reduction process and explain the key 
components of the MATRP and its accompanying regulations. NMFS will 
ensure that these educational materials are widely distributed 
throughout the fishery.
    The MATRT recommended several measures to enhance the effectiveness 
of NMFS' observer program, including expanding marine mammal observer 
coverage to include all areas covered by the MATRT, increased observer 
coverage in small mesh fisheries and better coordination between the 
activities of the stranding and observer programs to allow shifts of 
observer coverage in response to stranding information.
    NMFS is planning to expand observer coverage to ensure that all 
components of the fishery are observed. Due to limited resources, NMFS 
will not be able to increase observer coverage in areas of the fishery 
that are already being observed at some level. Additionally, NMFS is 
expanding stranding observer coverage to allow for responsiveness to 
observed strandings.
    To provide the necessary coordination between the teams and 
consistency across the regions, NMFS, at the recommendation of the 
GOMTRT, included several members of the GOMTRT on the MATRT. NMFS will 
strive to ensure that data on bycatch and effort in both areas will be 
shared with both teams.
    NMFS' long-term goal is to combine the GOMTRT and the MATRT to 
allow for the development of comprehensive strategies to reduce harbor 
porpoise bycatch on the east coast. Team Recommendations and NMFS'' 
Proposed Changes

Gulf of Maine Component

    The GOMTRT developed a comprehensive approach to the problem and 
included: (1) a core management plan that consisted of a schedule of 
time/area closures and periods when pingers would be required for each 
of the established management areas, (2) an implementation plan, and 
(3) a series of recommendations regarding data collection and analysis 
(details regarding these elements can be found in 62 FR 43302, August 
13, 1997, and is incorporated by reference).
    The August 13, 1997 proposed rule (62 FR 43302) would have 
implemented a schedule of time/area closures and periods during which 
pingers would be required for each of the established sink gillnet 
management areas. The proposed regulations included a comprehensive 
approach based on the GOMTRT's draft plan and on the measures 
implemented by the NEFMC as discussed above. The proposed GOMTRP 
regulations maintained the comprehensive approach recommended by the 
GOMTRT. Comments on the proposed rule are addressed in this document.
    Following is a discussion of the area-by-area management 
recommendations and data and the explanations for why NMFS is proposing 
to retain some provisions as recommended by the GOMTRT at its December 
16 and 17, 1997 meeting, and why some changes to the GOMTRT's 
recommendations are being proposed.

Northeast Area

    Currently, the Northeast Area is closed to sink gillnet fishing 
from August 15 through September 13 of each year. This closure remains 
in effect under Framework 25 to the NE Multispecies FMP so no further 
management measures (pingers) are being considered at this time. This 
measure was considered sufficient by the GOMTRT and NMFS, and 
represents no change from the proposed rule issued on August 13, 1997.

Mid-Coast Area

    Since Framework 4 to the NE Multispecies FMP (59 FR 26972, May 25, 
1994) went into effect, the Mid-Coast Area has been closed to fishing 
with sink gillnets from March 25 to April 25 of each year (this first 
took effect in 1995). In the past, the Mid-Coast Area has been closed 
from September 15 through the end of the year. In 1995, sink gillnet 
fishers were allowed to operate in the area with no restrictions from 
September 15 through October 31, and were allowed to participate in an 
experimental fishery in certain parts of the area in November and 
December, provided they used pingers in accordance with NMFS 
specifications. In 1996, gillnetters were also allowed to participate 
in an experimental fishery from September 15 to October 31, and 
Framework Adjustment 19 to the NEFMP authorized sink gillnet fishing 
with pingers in the area for the months of November and December. 
Framework Adjustment 19 also closed a portion of the Mid-Coast Area 
known as Jeffreys Ledge Closure Area from May 1-May 31 in 1997.
    While the HPTRP does not include a complete closure in the Mid-
Coast Area, Framework 25 to the NE Multispecies FMP provides three, 
month-long closures in different parts of the Mid-Coast Area 
(previously described). The months of April and May had significant 
harbor porpoise bycatch in 1994-1996 and therefore, the Framework 25 
closure is expected to reduce harbor porpoise bycatch, but it is not 
clear to what extent. The requirement for pingers in March will reduce 
the likelihood that significant takes would occur because of effort 
shifts back into that month. The Western GOM Area Closure (includes 
portions of Jeffreys Ledge and Stellwagen Bank) is being implemented as 
a year-round closure under Framework 25 to the NE Multispecies FMP. 
This overlaps the eastern edge of the current Mid-Coast closure.
    The GOMTRT agreed that pingers were likely to reduce harbor 
porpoise bycatch by 90 percent during the fall in the Mid-Coast area. 
This plan assumes 80 percent effectiveness which would allow for some 
uncertainty in spring.

Massachusetts Bay

    Currently, Massachusetts Bay is closed to fishing with sink 
gillnets during the month of March. This is the time of year during 
which most known takes in the region were recorded. This measure is 
considered sufficient by the GOMTRT and NMFS and is consistent with 
Framework 25 to the NE Multispecies FMP. When combined with the pinger 
measure described here, no change in the closures for this area appears 
warranted.
    In March 1996, NMFS authorized fishers to operate in Massachusetts 
Bay as part of an experimental fishery, provided they used pingers in 
accordance with NMFS's instructions. The GOMTRT was uncertain that 
pingers would significantly reduce the take of harbor porpoises during 
the spring in Massachusetts Bay. The GOMTRT agreed, however, to assume 
that pingers might reduce the take of harbor porpoises by 50 percent 
during the spring, and it recommended that pingers be required during 
February, April, and May. Again, NMFS is reluctant to assume 
percentages contradictory to the results of controlled scientific 
experiments and is proposing to assume 80 percent for the first year of 
plan implementation. Refer to the section on acoustic deterrent devices 
for further explanation.
    Closures during these months would decrease fishing opportunity 
significantly, with relatively little additional reduction in bycatch 
of harbor porpoises. Because March is the month with the highest risk 
of entanglement, the Team recommended that March be closed to sink 
gillnet fishing. April bycatch in 1996 was high for this area, possibly 
a result of shifted effort from March to April, or differences in 
harbor porpoise abundance and distribution. The goal of

[[Page 48677]]

the HPTRP is to reduce the bycatch resulting from such effects by 
requiring pingers on the months on either side of the complete closure.

Cape Cod South Closure Area

    The possibility that harbor porpoise may be entangled in sink 
gillnets operating just south of Cape Cod has only recently been 
documented. Observer coverage of sink gillnet trips in this area began 
in 1992.
    Currently, the Cape Cod South Closure Area is closed to fishing 
with sink gillnets during the month of March. Up until 1996, most known 
takes in the region occurred during this month. The current closures 
are considered sufficient by the GOMTRT and NMFS, and no change in the 
complete closures for this area is warranted. Given the relatively low 
level of bycatch during these months, the Team believed that the use of 
pingers to minimize bycatch would be sufficient.

Offshore Closure Area

    Observer coverage in the offshore closure area was limited until 
1996, and harbor porpoise takes that year were very high, estimated at 
258 in the winter (mostly February) and 45 in the fall (September-
December). This raised significant concerns at the GOMTRT meeting in 
December 1997 and offset some of the expected positive effects of many 
of the other harbor porpoise measures at reducing the overall bycatch 
estimate from 1995 (total bycatch in GOM was approximately 1400 in 1995 
and 1500 in 1996). In 1997, there were observed takes in January and 
May, again demonstrating the variable nature of these interactions.
    Consequently, a complete closure in this area was discussed by the 
GOMTRT in December 1997, with a closure requiring pingers in the months 
adjacent to that closure to address the possible shifts in bycatch. 
Since 71 percent of the bycatch occurred in the Cashes Ledge Area 
during February in 1996, complete closure of this area was a logical 
choice, with pinger use required in the larger offshore area from 
September through May.

Mid-Atlantic Component

    The MATRT draft report recommended modifications of those gear 
characteristics and fishing activities that appeared to be most closely 
linked with higher harbor porpoise bycatch. The intent of the MATRT was 
to focus management measures on those fisheries that appeared most 
responsible for higher bycatch. In the Mid-Atlantic, those fisheries 
are the monkfish and dogfish fisheries. Based on observer data, the 
draft report also recommended a schedule of fishery closures in areas 
and at times most closely linked with high harbor porpoise.
    The MATRT's report reflected the results of the data analysis, 
indicating that nets with finer twine size and longer floatline lengths 
were correlated with more cetacean interactions than were nets with 
larger twine sizes and shorter nets. The MATRT recommended that, in 
observed areas of high bycatch, decreasing the total length of nets and 
increasing the twine size in fisheries operating in those areas at 
critical times might reduce the number of interactions.
    The MATRT determined the time frame for effectiveness of the 
management measures based on when and where harbor porpoise takes have 
been observed to occur. Harbor porpoise takes were observed between 
January and April from New Jersey to North Carolina, although January 
takes were only observed in New Jersey. The month with the highest 
bycatch was March, followed by January. Areas with highest bycatch were 
in New Jersey waters and, particularly for the monkfish subfishery, in 
the area off New Jersey called the Mudhole.
    The MATRT recommended that a number of management measures be 
combined to achieve bycatch reduction below the PBR level because none 
of the gear characteristics alone were strongly correlated with reduced 
bycatch. Since these measures would be ineffective if effort increased, 
the MATRT recommended a net cap or net limit to keep effort at current 
levels. The net cap was set at the current average of 80 nets for 
monkfish and 45 nets for dogfish. Additionally, because of the 
uncertainty inherent in the data analysis, the MATRT recommended the 
use of time and area closures during times and within areas of highest 
bycatch.
    Specifically, the MATRT report recommended the following gear 
modifications and time/area closures for the monkfish and dogfish 
fisheries (Tables 4 and 5): Effective period for both Tables.
     New Jersey waters, and U.S. waters off New Jersey out to 
200 miles--January 1 through April 30.
     Southern Mid-Atlantic (MD, DE, VA, NC) and U.S. waters off 
the southern Mid-Atlantic out to 200 miles--February 1 through April 
30.

 Table 4.--Management Measures for the Monkfish Fishery, as Recommended 
                   by the MATRT in its Report to NMFS                   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Floatline Length:                                                       
    New Jersey Mudhole: Less than or equal to 3,900 ft (1188.7 m) New   
     Jersey Waters (excluding Mudhole): Less than or equal to 4,800 ft  
     (1463.0 m).                                                        
    Southern Mid-Atlantic: Less than or equal to 3,900 ft (1188.7 m).   
Twine Size:                                                             
    All Mid-Atlantic Waters: Greater than or equal to .90 mm (.35       
     inches).                                                           
Mesh Size:                                                              
    All Mid-Atlantic Waters: 12 inches (3.1 cm).                        
Tie Downs:                                                              
    All Mid-Atlantic Waters: Required.                                  
Net Cap:                                                                
    All Mid-Atlantic Waters: 80 nets (nets are 300 ft (91.4 m) long).   
Time/Area Closures:                                                     
    New Jersey waters and 200 nm (370.4 km) offshore (including the     
     Mudhole): Closed from February 15--March 15.                       
    Southern Mid-Atlantic (MD, DE, VA, NC) waters and 200 nm (370.4 km) 
     offshore: Closed for a block of 20 days between February and       
     April.\1\                                                          
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The specific timing of the southern Mid-Atlantic 20-day closure     
  would be determined by individual fishers.                            


[[Page 48678]]


Table 5.--Management Measures for the Dogfish Fishery, as Recommended by
                     the MATRT in Its Report to NMFS                    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Floatline Length:                                                       
    New Jersey waters: Less than or equal to 3,000 feet (914.4 m)       
     Southern Mid-Atlantic waters: Less than or equal to 2,118 feet     
     (645.6 m).                                                         
Twine Size:                                                             
    All Mid-Atlantic Waters: Greater than or equal to .81 mm (.32       
     inches).                                                           
Mesh Size:                                                              
    All Mid-Atlantic Waters: Less than or equal to 6.5 inches (1.7 cm). 
Net Cap:                                                                
    All Mid-Atlantic waters:\2\ 45 nets.                                
Time/area Closures:                                                     
    None.                                                               
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Nets are 300 feet long.                                             

    The Mid-Atlantic component of the HPTRP follows the MATRT's 
recommendations, except as discussed below. The non-consensus portions 
of the MATRT's report are discussed in the HPTRP/EA/IRFA. NMFS concurs 
with the MATRT's determination that the proposed management measures be 
effective from January 1 through April 30 in waters off New Jersey and 
from February 1 to April 30 in the southern Mid-Atlantic waters. The 
difference in effective dates between New Jersey and the southern Mid-
Atlantic is based on the difference in observed harbor porpoise takes 
between those areas. There were no observed takes of harbor porpoise 
between July and December throughout the Mid-Atlantic because there is 
little evidence that harbor porpoise are present in the Mid-Atlantic 
during the summer, fall, and winter months.
    The proposed HPTRP varies from the recommendations of the MATRT 
because the HPTRP proposes extending jurisdiction from the seaward edge 
of the coast to 72 deg.30' W. longitude offshore instead of 200 miles 
offshore.
    The proposed HPTRP differs from the MATRT's recommendations with 
regard to basing management measures on subfisheries. The Mid-Atlantic 
coastal gillnet fishery consists of both local Mid-Atlantic vessels and 
New England vessels that fish in Mid-Atlantic waters during the winter 
months. The New England vessels fishing in the Mid-Atlantic region use 
a finer-twine gear type and more nets than the local Mid-Atlantic 
vessels.
    Current data indicate that the fine-twine gear used by New England 
vessels is associated with a higher level of harbor porpoise bycatch 
than the gear used by local fishers. As a result, the MATRT's Report 
was based on bycatch reduction options that reinforced or were based on 
the fishing practices used by local Mid-Atlantic fishers. The intent of 
the MATRT was to address those fisheries that appeared to be correlated 
with higher bycatch.
    The MATRT recommended management measures specific to the two 
predominant coastal gillnet fisheries, i.e., the monkfish and dogfish 
fisheries. NMFS proposes management measures specific to large and 
small mesh size fisheries. This approach should not change the 
effectiveness of the management measures in achieving the PBR level 
because the mesh size categories are consistent with the mesh size 
categories of the dogfish (small mesh) and monkfish (large mesh) 
fisheries. The major benefits of this modification is to make the 
provisions of this action more enforceable.
    Given the considerable assumptions inherent in the bycatch analysis 
by subfishery, NMFS determined that regulatory measures should not be 
based on subfisheries, as the MATRT intended. Rather, the regulatory 
measures should be based on the characteristic(s) that appear most 
related to harbor porpoise bycatch, regardless of which subfishery 
employs such gear characteristics. It is the nature of the gear and how 
that gear is employed, rather than the target species, that determines 
whether harbor porpoise are entangled. In addition, basing regulatory 
measures on the dogfish and monkfish subfisheries would be very 
difficult to enforce, since the definition and prosecution of those 
fisheries differs greatly among fishermen and no FMP or permit system 
is currently in place under the Magnuson-Stevens Act for either 
fishery. Likewise, defining ``directed fishing'' for these species and 
imposing bycatch restrictions would be difficult to administer and 
enforce.
    In this case, twine size and floatline length appear to be the 
predominant gear characteristics that are correlated with harbor 
porpoise bycatch in the Mid-Atlantic. NMFS has partitioned the 
regulatory measures according to large and small mesh categories. The 
large mesh category, defined as mesh of 7 inches (17.78 cm) to 18 
inches (45.72 cm), includes the monkfish subfishery; the small mesh 
category, defined as mesh size less than 7 inches (17.78 cm), includes 
the dogfish fishery.
    Given the models used in the subfishery bycatch analysis, and with 
the same assumptions that were used in the subfishery bycatch analysis 
(with the exception of the assumption that the only subfisheries that 
could potentially ever catch harbor porpoise are the dogfish and 
monkfish subfisheries), the predicted effect of using the recommended 
gear characteristics based on large mesh and small mesh gillnet 
categories instead of dogfish and monkfish subfisheries is still 
expected to result in a 79 percent or greater reduction in harbor 
porpoise bycatch in the Mid-Atlantic.
    The proposed HPTRP differs from the MATRT's recommendations with 
regard to the timing of area closures. For the large mesh fishery (the 
monkfish fishery), the MATRT recommended New Jersey waters, including 
the Mudhole be closed from February 15 through March 15. NMFS proposes 
that the February 15 through March 15 closure apply only to vessels 
fishing in the Mudhole. Data indicate high bycatch in the rest of New 
Jersey in April, therefore NMFS proposes a closure in the rest of New 
Jersey from April 1 through April 20. The MATRT also recommended that 
the southern Mid-Atlantic be closed for a block of 20 days between 
February and April, the timing of the closure to be determined by the 
individual fishers. Such a closure would be very difficult to enforce, 
therefore NMFS proposes a set closure from February 15 through March 15 
in the southern Mid-Atlantic. The timing of this closure is consistent 
with the timing of high harbor porpoise bycatch and is consistent with 
the timeframe envisioned by the MATRT.
    For the small mesh fishery (the dogfish fishery), the MATRT 
recommended no time and area closures. Closures may not be necessary 
for most of the small mesh fishery, except in the Mudhole. The majority 
of the takes in the northern area are from

[[Page 48679]]

vessels landing in New Jersey from February through April and the 
fishing activity in the is particularly high during the February 
through March time period. The level of effort for both the small mesh 
and large mesh fisheries are very high in the Mudhole, therefore NMFS 
proposes a one month closure from February 15 through March 15 in the 
Mudhole for the small mesh fishery consistent with the one month 
closure for the large mesh fishery. Data on Acoustic Deterrent Devices 
and Implications for TRP Bycatch Reduction
    NMFS, the fishing community, and the NEFMC have been exploring the 
potential of mitigating incidental bycatch of harbor porpoise in 
gillnets by using active acoustic alarms to warn harbor porpoise of the 
presence of a gillnet. These devices have shown promise as a bycatch 
reduction measure with varying success rates in both controlled 
scientific experimentation and experimental fisheries. However, 
scientists note that the results of these experiments should be 
cautiously applied when evaluating the success or failure of bycatch 
reduction in very different geographic areas or during other times than 
those investigated within the experiment. Harbor porpoise may respond 
differently seasonally, between geographic areas, or with differing 
oceanographic conditions.
    In the fall of 1994, NMFS authorized and provided support for a 
cooperative scientific experiment by New England gillnet fishers and 
scientists. Building on work completed in previous years (1992-1993), 
the experiment sought to evaluate the effectiveness of pingers attached 
to gillnets to prevent entanglement of harbor porpoise. The pingers 
used in this experiment employed a wide range of frequencies, and 
acoustic features of the devices may have varied due to battery life; 
yet the result was a dramatic reduction in harbor porpoise bycatch 
(Kraus et al., 1995). Scientific concerns remained after this 
experiment. It was still uncertain why the alarms worked; harbor 
porpoise may have responded directly to the sound or the sound may have 
mediated the behavior of harbor porpoise prey (herring). Other 
unanswered questions include the possibility of habituation of harbor 
porpoise and other mammals to pingers over time and the overall 
environmental effects of widespread pinger use.
    As a result of the success of the scientific experiment, 
experimental fisheries (an experimental fishery is not a scientifically 
designed experiment, but pinger use under uncontrolled fishing 
conditions) operated in the fall of both 1995 and 1996 and in the 
spring of 1996. In the fall of 1996 (Sept. 15-Oct 31) experimental 
fishery, three harbor porpoise were caught in 51 observed trips (198 
hauls). Unfortunately, the results of the spring 1996 experimental 
fishery were different from the other experiments--11 harbor porpoise 
were caught in nets with pingers in the Jeffreys Ledge area (88 hauls, 
9 harbor porpoise), Massachusetts Bay (171 hauls, 2 harbor porpoise), 
and in the Cape Cod South Closure Area (53 hauls, no harbor porpoise) 
(Waring et al., 1997).
    One possible explanation is that the positive fall results may have 
been due to the pingers' deterrent effects on herring (a prey species), 
which are not present in the region in spring. Consequently, the GOMTRT 
recommended an additional scientific pinger experiment in the spring of 
1997. No harbor porpoise were caught in nets with active pingers in the 
1997 experiment, demonstrating that pingers reduced the incidental 
catch of harbor porpoise in sink gillnets during the spring by almost 
100 percent (Kraus et al., 1997). Based on these findings, Kraus 
concluded that these results appear to disprove the hypothesis that 
deterrent effects on herring explain the discrepancy between results of 
the fall and spring experimental fisheries. However, the 1997 
experiment did not yield any alternative explanations for the 
contradictory results of the spring experimental fishery.
    The unanswered questions regarding pinger success add uncertainty 
to predictions of pinger effectiveness in areas other than those where 
the experiments occurred (in both time and area). In addition, because 
of a lack of a control in the 1996 experimental fishery, conclusions 
cannot be drawn about the high bycatch observed during that experiment. 
Because of these uncertainties, this proposed rule uses the results of 
the scientific experiments to assess the effectiveness of pingers in 
reducing harbor porpoise bycatch in the GOM. NMFS recognizes that 
sufficient monitoring of this fishery must occur during plan 
implementation to ensure that pingers adequately reduce harbor porpoise 
bycatch.
    Closures for short periods of time in discrete areas have a number 
of problems that decrease their effectiveness in reducing marine mammal 
bycatch. Changes in distribution of fishing effort or in annual 
abundance and distribution of harbor porpoise may render these closures 
ineffective. The advantage of using pingers is that they can be 
employed over a wide geographic area for a long period of time while 
still allowing the fishery to continue. The principle findings of the 
Acoustic Deterrence Workshop in 1996 (Reeves, et al.) noted that ``it 
is appropriate to proceed with the full-scale integration of pingers 
into the management regime for the NE multispecies sink gillnet fishery 
provided that the regime includes observer and monitoring programs 
adequate to verify that the bycatch remains acceptably low and that no 
non-target species is affected adversely'.

Summary

    In summary, based on reviewing the results of previous pinger 
experiments, the recommendations from the 1996 Acoustic Deterrence 
Workshop, and the discussion during the GOMTRT meeting in December 
1997, this proposed rule would require widespread pinger use in the NE 
multispecies sink gillnet fishery. Data from the scientific experiments 
support a minimum 80 percent effectiveness rate estimate in the Mid-
Coast area in the fall and in the spring. Therefore, NMFS will apply 
these pinger effectiveness rates to fall and spring pinger closures 
proposed in other areas (Cape Cod South and Offshore) that lack 
experimental data.
    After implementation of this plan, NMFS will review harbor porpoise 
bycatch rate by June 30 (i.e., after the spring fishing season) of each 
calendar year to ensure that the expected pinger effectiveness rate is 
being realized. Additionally, this proposed rule includes a provision 
that would allow the Assistant Administrator to make adjustments in the 
time or area of closures if unexpected high bycatch occurs during a 
given year.
    The major benefit of this aspect of the HPTRP is that by 
establishing closures requiring pingers, it implements a bycatch 
reduction strategy for several months on either side of complete 
closures. This should help with the inter-annual and monthly 
variability problem that may have contributed to keeping total bycatch 
at relatively unchanged or increasing levels for the last several 
years.
    Pingers were discussed at length as a management option by the 
MATRT. As a management strategy, it is appropriate for many reasons to 
proceed with full scale integration of pingers to reduce the incidental 
bycatch of marine mammals in the NE multispecies sink gillnet fishery 
as a whole. However, caution has been urged by scientists and the 
GOMTRT and MATRT in applying the assumptions demonstrated in New 
England to other geographic areas, gear types, and times. Based on 
recommendations of the Acoustic Deterrence Workshop, acoustic

[[Page 48680]]

deterrents should not be used in fisheries where other non-acoustic 
management strategies are likely to be equally effective.

Comments and Responses

    NMFS received numerous comments during the 60-day comment period 
following its August 13, 1997, proposed rule. NMFS received further 
comments when it reopened the public comment period following the 
December 16-17, 1997, meeting of the GOMTRT (97 FR 32474). The 
following are NMFS' responses to the comments received on the August 
1997 proposed rule.

Proposed Schedule of Closures/Pinger Use

    NMFS received several comments regarding the proposed schedule of 
fishery closures and required pinger use. NMFS has considered these 
comments in light of new information on harbor porpoise bycatch and 
relevant fishery management actions that have occurred since the 
publication of the proposed rule. NMFS believes that the proposed HPTRP 
represents the best comprehensive management strategy for both reducing 
U.S. harbor porpoise bycatch and rebuilding groundfish stocks under 
Framework 25 the NE Multispecies FMP.
    Comment 1: For the Mid-Coast Area, several commenters suggested 
alternative schedules of fishery closures and required pinger use from 
that proposed.
    Response: The new proposed rule would close the Mid-Coast Area from 
September 15 through May 31, but allow sink gillnet gear with pingers 
during that time period. The proposed rule does not include a complete 
closure in the Mid-Coast Area. However, Framework 25 to the NE 
Multispecies FMP provides three 1-month closures in different sections 
of the Mid-Coast Area. Additionally, Framework 25 includes a year-round 
closure of parts of Jeffreys Ledge and Stellwagen Bank which NMFS 
expects will provide protection for harbor porpoise.
    NMFS expects that the closures under Framework 25, in combination 
with pinger requirements for extended periods of time in the months on 
either side of the closure, will ensure adequate bycatch reduction. If 
the NEFMC makes changes to Framework 25 that NMFS expects would result 
in increased harbor porpoise bycatch, the Assistant Administrator 
could, under the new proposed rule, make adjustments to the timing or 
area of a closure.
    Comment 2: One commenter proposed an alternative schedule of 
closures and pinger use for the Massachusetts Bay area as follows: (1) 
maintain March 1 through March 31 closure and (2) close this area to 
fishing during February and April except to vessels participating in an 
experimental fishery with pingers.
    Response: NMFS is proposing for the Massachusetts Bay Area: (1) 
March 1 through March 31 closure, (2) February 1 through February 28/29 
and April 1 through May 31 closures, but fishing with pingers allowed. 
Therefore, an experimental fishery under the Magnuson-Stevens Act will 
not be necessary because the NEFMC will be asked to mirror the MMPA 
regulations in the current Magnuson-Stevens Act closures.
    Comment 3: One commenter supported the Downeast closure as proposed 
by both the GOMTRT and NMFS in its draft plan.
    Response: NMFS is maintaining this closure, referred to as the 
Northeast closure, in the proposed rule.
    Comment 4: One commenter proposed an alternative schedule of 
closures South of Cape Cod: (1) maintain March 1 through March 31 
closure and (2) close this area to fishing during January, February, 
April, May, September, October, November, and December except to 
vessels participating in an experimental fishery with pingers.
    Response: NMFS is proposing a similar schedule of closures and 
pinger use for the Cape Cod South Area: (1) March 1 through March 31 
closure and (2) September 15 through February 28/29 and April 1 through 
April 30 closures, but fishing with pingers allowed.
    Comment 5: One commenter mentioned that harbor porpoise takes have 
now been observed in the offshore gillnet area, which was previously 
unobserved. The commenter proposed closing the offshore gillnet area 
from January 1 through May 31, and September 1 through December 31, 
except to vessels participating in a experimental fishery with pingers.
    Response: NMFS is proposing to close the offshore area from 
September 15 through May 31, allowing pingers during that time period, 
with the exception of the Cashes Ledge Closure Area (as defined in 
Framework 25 to the NEFMP), which will be closed February 1 through 
February 28/29. In 1996, the Cashes Ledge Closure Area contained 71 
percent of approximately 258 total takes in the month of February. The 
high bycatch previously undocumented in the offshore area was one of 
the reasons that overall bycatch in the GOM has not decreased, in spite 
of efforts by the NEFMC. Consequently, in order for the overall plan to 
achieve its bycatch reduction objectives, NMFS is proposing a closure 
in February with pingers required in the months adjacent to that 
closure to address possible shifts in bycatch. This is the approach 
used in all the other high bycatch areas (Mid-Coast, Massachusetts Bay, 
and Cape Cod South).
    Comment 6: One commenter stated that the harbor porpoise bycatch 
data presented to the GOMTRT for the Southern New England area 
exhibited significant inter-annual variability within the 3 years of 
data collected. The GOMTRT agreed to extend pinger usage to this area, 
but expressed concern over the minimal amount of observed data (1992-
1994) and the lack of current data. As a result, the commenter 
recommended a re-examination of the alternatives for the area to better 
substantiate the optimal period for closures and pinger usage.
    Response: NMFS agrees that there is seasonal variability in both 
harbor porpoise bycatch and fishing effort. However, based on recent 
data, overall harbor porpoise distribution, and fishing effort 
distribution, the HPTRP incorporates adequate bycatch reduction 
measures during those months (September--April) when harbor porpoise 
and fishing effort are most likely to result in high bycatch, taking 
into account possible shifts in harbor porpoise distribution and 
abundance or shifts in fishing effort.
    Comment 7: One commenter urged NMFS to maintain and enforce the 
current closures mandated by the NEFMC.
    Response: See response to Comment 1 for a description of NEFMC and 
harbor porpoise proposed closures. The only change to the current NEFMC 
closures is in the Mid-Coast where pingers would be allowed during 
March 25 through April 25. In combination with the other components of 
the HPTRP, this is not expected to result in increased bycatch overall.

Pingers: Specifications and Implementation Issues

    Comment 8: Two commenters noted that NMFS defined pinger broadcast 
parameters in the proposed rule, but did not provide regulatory 
guidance as to how it intends to either certify pingers as ``NMFS 
approved'' or test and enforce the defined parameters.
    Response: The proposed rule included specifications for pingers 
that are required to be used in the NE multispecies sink gillnet 
fishery. All pingers used in this fishery must meet those 
specifications. Pinger manufacturers would be required to provide 
documentation that their

[[Page 48681]]

pingers meet the specifications of this proposed rule. NMFS is not 
requiring that manufacturers have their pingers certified by an 
independent company to ensure they meet the specifications. NMFS will 
periodically monitor whether the pingers used by the fishery meet the 
specifications.
    Because the harbor porpoise bycatch rate will be carefully 
monitored, NMFS expects that both manufacturers and fishers will be 
aware of the importance of technically correct and properly maintained 
pingers. If bycatch increases because of improper pinger use or non-
effective acoustics, more restrictive measures to reduce bycatch may be 
warranted. Additionally, a program that is part of the HPTRP would be 
in place to monitor pingers during normal use to ensure that acoustics 
of pingers do not change with time and that they maintain the 
acoustical characteristics specified by the manufacturer.
    Comment 9: In the proposed rule, NMFS included a description of a 
pinger, including specific pinger parameters. The manufacturer and 
technical supporter which provided pingers used in the GOM pinger tests 
believes the following to be a more accurate description of the 
acoustic deterrent device used in the NE multispecies sink gillnet 
fishery: ``operates at 10kHz (plus-minus 1 kHz) broadband (contains 
important harmonics) frequency at 134dB (plus-minus 4dB) re 1 
micropascal at 1 meter output level, with 300 milliseconds (plus-minus 
30 milliseconds) pulse width, and 4 seconds (plus-minus 400 
milliseconds) pulse rate''.
    Response: The pinger specifications defined in NMFS' August 13, 
1997, proposed rule accurately reflect the pingers used in the GOM 
pinger experiments, yet allow for a reasonable range of manufacturing 
variability to ensure these pinger broadcast parameters can be produced 
by different manufacturers. Therefore, no change in the specifications 
is proposed.
    Comment 10: One commenter suggested that NMFS require that vessels 
carry four spare pingers in case of pinger malfunction.
    Response: NMFS does not agree that vessel owners should be required 
to carry a specific number of spare pingers in case of pinger 
malfunction; the requirement that all pingers deployed must be 
``operating and functional'' provides adequate direction to vessel 
owners.
    Comment 11: One commenter supported the NMFS proposal that 
gillnetters be required to use the same pinger placement as was used in 
the GOM pinger experiment.
    Response: NMFS has maintained this provision in this proposed rule.
    Comment 12: Two commenters urged NMFS to immediately conduct the 
GOMTRT's recommended research on the effect of pingers on harbor 
porpoise and other marine life and on the habituation of harbor 
porpoise to pingers.
    Response: A study to evaluate the habituation and displacement 
question has been funded. As part of the non-regulatory components of 
this HPTRP, NMFS is developing a research plan to assess long-term 
ecosystem impacts from widespread use of pingers.
    Comment 13: One commenter suggested that if pingers are shown to 
have an adverse impact on harbor porpoise and other animals in the 
ecosystem, NMFS should close those areas that are currently proposed to 
be open with required pinger usage.
    Response: If pingers are shown to have an adverse impact on harbor 
porpoise, NMFS will reconvene the TRTs to evaluate other alternatives, 
including, but not limited to, fishery closures.
    Comment 14: Three commenters stated that NMFS' proposal to provide 
printed educational material on pingers is inadequate, and that NMFS 
should conduct pinger workshops and make attendance mandatory. 
Additionally, one comment added that the GOMTRT, at its December 1997 
meeting, strongly urged NMFS to undertake the recommended certification 
process.
    Response: NMFS agrees and plans to conduct a pinger certification 
training program. After reviewing the 1996 bycatch data and proposing 
to rely further on the widespread use of pingers in this proposed rule, 
NMFS determined that a pinger certification program should be required 
for fishers that want to fish with pingers in closed areas. NMFS 
believes that this is an important aspect of the plan, especially given 
the anomalous results of the 1996 experimental fishery. If these 
results were partially due to improper pinger use by fishers, NMFS 
would expect that this mandatory training and certification program 
would increase the chances that pingers would be highly effective.
    The GOM component of the HPTRP would require that all fishers who 
wish to fish in an area where pingers are required must attend a pinger 
certification training program. The exact delivery method of this 
program has not been determined, but operators of fishing vessels would 
be required to have a certificate documenting that they have received 
training/certification on board their vessels if they are fishing in a 
closed area, with pingers.
    Comment 15: Two commenters stated that concerns of unintended 
effects of pinger use are greatly overblown. Based on the results of 
the spring 1997 experiment, NMFS should allow widespread use of pingers 
in GOM.
    Response: Uncertainties do exist surrounding potential unintended 
effects of pinger use, but these effects are not expected to be 
significant. However, this cannot be tested until put into application. 
Therefore, NMFS is proposing widespread pinger use, accompanied by 
scientific studies, to evaluate both habituation and displacement of 
harbor porpoise and over-reaching environmental effects from widespread 
use. If data from the monitoring program indicate that pingers are not 
working, the Assistant Administrator could, under this proposed rule, 
make adjustments in the time or area of closures.

Census of Gillnet Fleet

    Comment 16: Several commenters stressed the need for NMFS to 
conduct a census of the NE multispecies sink gillnet fishery. Without 
this, one commenter questioned how NMFS will conduct outreach to the 
fishing community, determine if all fishers are registered, calculate 
an accurate bycatch estimate, or evaluate whether it is achieving the 
goals of the MMPA.
    Response: The GOMTRT recommended that NMFS conduct or support a 
census of the sink gillnet fleet to determine seasonal effort type, and 
amount of gear fished, target species, and areas fished. NMFS has 
assessed the usefulness of vessel logbooks for a number of purposes and 
has more clearly defined the procedures used in collecting both fisher 
and dealer information to insure accuracy. However, the GOMTRT noted 
that development of a reporting system that provides timely, 
consistent, and thorough measures of fishery effort may require an 
overhaul of existing reporting mechanisms. Toward this end, NMFS is 
working as a partner in a cooperative effort between the Atlantic 
coastal states and the ASMFC on development of the ACCSP. The ACCSP has 
been designed to solve some of the inherent problems of current fishery 
statistic data collection systems. NMFS partially funded and 
participated in development of the bycatch component of this system and 
expects that it will improve the agency's ability to accurately reflect 
fishing effort and bycatch in both state and Federal fisheries. When 
fully operational, this system is expected to solve some of the 
problems addressed by this comment.

[[Page 48682]]

    Comment 17: In the preamble to the earlier proposed rule, NMFS 
stated that it was examining the usefulness of fishing logbooks for 
effort estimation and the feasibility of technological alternatives and 
requested comments. One commenter recommended that NMFS summarize what 
it has done to investigate the possible alternative methods of 
estimating fishing effort and the results of such efforts. Two 
additional commenters urged NMFS to make the technological changes 
necessary to achieve real-time monitoring of effort, landings, and 
bycatch.
    Response: The ACCSP (discussed in response to Comment 16) has been 
designed to solve some of the inherent problems of current fishery 
statistic data collection systems. This system was designed with 
considerations such as whether or not new reporting mechanisms or new 
methods of effort calculation were needed. The program's implementation 
phase has already begun, but NMFS expects that such a comprehensive 
system will require a significant amount of time to become completely 
operational. NMFS will provide an update on the progress of this 
program at the next meeting of the GOMTRT.

Reconvening the GOMTRT

    Comment 18: Three commenters suggested that NMFS reconvene the 
GOMTRT and provide it with the results of the spring 1997 pinger 
experiment.
    Response: NMFS reconvened the GOMTRT on December 16 through 17, 
1997. NMFS provided the GOMTRT with an analysis of the results of the 
spring 1997 pinger experiment and with updated estimates of harbor 
porpoise takes in both the GOM and Mid-Atlantic. Based on this 
information, the GOMTRT made recommendations to NMFS for further 
reducing the incidental take of harbor porpoise in the GOM which have 
been incorporated into this proposed rule.
    Comment 19: One commenter commended NMFS for conducting the spring 
1997 pinger experiment, immediately completing the experimental 
analysis, and providing this information to the GOMTRT.
    Response: No response necessary.
    Comment 20: NMFS should consider combining the two harbor porpoise 
TRTs, or having joint meetings to more effectively reduce harbor 
porpoise bycatch throughout the range of the species.
    Response: NMFS is considering combining the GOMTRT and MATRT (see 
response to Comment 23). NMFS is proposing one HPTRP to address the 
bycatch of harbor porpoise throughout their U.S. range. The gillnet 
fisheries in the GOM and Mid-Atlantic have different characteristics 
and, thus, have different management strategies available for reducing 
bycatch. To address the individual management needs of these gillnet 
fisheries, NMFS'' proposed HPTRP includes separate GOM and Mid-Atlantic 
components.
    Comment 21: NMFS should reconvene the GOMTRT semi-annually and 
provide it with data necessary to review whether the HPTRP is meeting 
its objectives.
    Response: NMFS intends to continually review the data to determine 
when a team meeting is warranted. The GOMTRT is expected to be 
reconvened no less than annually.

Bycatch Reduction--Allocation of PBR

    Comment 22: One commenter supported the approach recommended by the 
GOMTRT for allocating PBR between the GOM and the Mid-Atlantic areas. 
The commenter stated that PBR can not be allocated by region, and that 
each fishery should reduce takes by the same percentage.
    Response: NMFS has taken this approach, proposing a 79 percent 
reduction in both regions as agreed to by the TRTs.
    Comment 23: Two commenters suggested that NMFS reconvene both teams 
jointly to address the PBR allocation issue, and that NMFS should 
provide guidance on what type of allocation would be acceptable.
    Response: NMFS agrees that this idea has merit with respect to 
looking at harbor porpoise bycatch issues overall, but the fisheries 
involved are so different that it would be difficult to deal with 
specific plan elements in combination. Accordingly, NMFS will consider 
reconvening both teams jointly to address several aspects of the 
bycatch reduction strategies for harbor porpoise.
    Comment 24: One commenter noted that the preamble to the earlier 
proposed rule stated that ``an equitable allocation scheme will be 
developed for each segment of the fishery''. The commenter further 
noted that separate plans have been developed between the regions with 
available PBR accounted for within each plan, and any allocation scheme 
or reallocation scheme is unnecessary for discussion in the final rule.
    Response: No reallocation is proposed. See response to Comment 22.

Implementation of HPTRP

    Comment 25: Several commenters opposed implementation of a TRP 
under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Three commenters noted that it would 
not have as broad effect as implementation under the MMPA and would 
exempt those fishers who fish in state waters but do not have a Federal 
permit. Two commenters expressed concern that implementation under the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act would further delay the implementation of the TRP. 
Two commenters objected because fishery management councils were 
officially represented on the GOMTRT, and their subsequent involvement 
in this plan might undermine the take reduction process. Two commenters 
stated that implementation solely under the Magnuson-Stevens Act 
violates the intent of the MMPA. Finally, one commenter noted that NMFS 
would not be able to effectively monitor whether the TRP is achieving 
its objectives if implemented under the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
    Response: The current proposed rule would implement the proposed 
HPTRP under the authority of the MMPA. Therefore, fisheries in state 
waters would be subject to the regulations. Baitnets are exempted in 
this proposed rule, as discussed in NMFS' response to Comment 28. 
Through the ACCSP program of cooperation with the States, and through 
NMFS' monitoring activities, fisheries in state waters will be 
monitored for potential bycatch (see response to Comment 16).
    NMFS disagrees that implementation under the Magnuson-Stevens Act 
violates the MMPA. The MMPA requires NMFS to reduce the incidental 
bycatch of marine mammals in commercial fisheries to below the PBR 
level for strategic stocks. If this goal could be accomplished through 
Magnuson-Stevens Act actions, it would not be in violation of MMPA 
requirements.
    Comment 26: Two commenters urged NMFS to implement a TRP under the 
emergency authority of the MMPA because harbor porpoise takes exceed 
the PBR level and because it is illegal for NMFS to delay further.
    Response: An emergency action under MMPA requires any such action 
to be based on a commercial fisheries bycatch that is ``having, or is 
likely to have, an immediate and significant adverse impact.'' The 
current bycatch levels have long been recognized as having a 
significant and adverse, but not immediate, impact on this population. 
This is recognized by the agency in recent Stock Assessment Reports and 
the establishment of the GOMTRT. The total bycatch is high, but does 
not trigger the need for an immediate response due to the possibility 
for irreversible harm to the population.

[[Page 48683]]

Outreach

    Comment 27: One commenter commended NMFS for its extensive efforts 
to educate the fishing industry about whale bycatch issues and to bring 
about more whale-friendly fishing gear and practices. The commenter 
suggested that NMFS include harbor porpoise in this initiative. Because 
the constituent groups largely overlap, the two initiatives could 
reinforce each other with little additional effort. One commenter 
suggested that public outreach programs encompass all take reduction 
plans so that such efforts could be focused and coordinated.
    Response: NMFS agrees and has coordinated the public outreach 
efforts for the Atlantic coast take reduction efforts. NMFS has 
recently conducted TRP informational programs to communicate the 
purposes and goals of the plans to the commercial fishing industry. 
These programs, conducted in conjunction with East Coast commercial 
fishermen's exhibitions, gave commercial fishers the opportunity to 
learn more about the TRP process, and to express their concerns in 
person to NMFS managers and biologists. Informational programs were 
held in several locations in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic region. 
Handouts were developed and distributed describing the TRPs and the new 
mandated process for managing interactions between commercial fisheries 
and marine mammals. Educational fact sheets informed fishers of 
appropriate action to take in cases of whale entanglement and provided 
guidance on identifying specific species of marine mammals. Seminars 
and panel discussions were conducted detailing the specific 
requirements of the existing take reduction process and provided an 
opportunity for input from fishers and other interest groups.

Harbor Porpoise Mortality in Other Fisheries

    Comment 28: Several commenters noted that harbor porpoise bycatch 
is likely in other fisheries, including baitnets and other fisheries in 
state waters. NMFS should ensure that bycatch in these fisheries is 
addressed. One commenter further noted that baitnets and other 
fisheries in state waters may be exempt from the restrictions of the 
HPTRP if it is implemented under the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
    Response: Because the regulations would be issued under the 
authority of the MMPA, fisheries in state waters would be subject to 
them. Baitnets would be exempt under the new proposed rule because they 
are tended, are limited in length, and only fished for short periods of 
time. The GOMTRT agreed that they are unlikely to take harbor porpoise. 
Through the ACCSP program of cooperation with the States, and through 
NMFS monitoring activities, fisheries in state waters will be monitored 
for potential bycatch.
    Comment 29: One commenter expressed concern that mid-water trawls 
are operating in harbor porpoise habitat at times of high use by the 
animals, and urged NMFS to investigate this possible source of 
mortality.
    Response: NMFS is aware that an Atlantic herring trawl fishery may 
be operating in the Northeast at times and in locations where there is 
a high density of harbor porpoise. This fishery is comprised of 
approximately 35 vessels operating in the Northwest Atlantic. NMFS 
currently has the authority to place observers on pelagic herring trawl 
vessels under the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
    Because this herring trawl fishery uses similar gear to the 
Atlantic squid, mackerel, butterfish trawl fishery (a Category II 
fishery), and because of its potential to interact with harbor 
porpoise, NMFS is analyzing existing information on the levels of 
serious injury and mortality of marine mammals that are occurring 
incidental to this fishery and will propose adding this fishery to the 
List of Fisheries for 1999.

Enforcement

    Comment 30: Two comments were received concerning enforcement. At 
the re-convening of the GOMTRT in December 1997, data indicated that 
fishers are fishing in closed areas and, in some cases, are fishing 
without pingers in areas and during periods when they are required. No 
enforcement action had been taken. Both the U.S. Coast Guard and NMFS 
Enforcement representatives present at the meeting admitted that, at 
this time, they have no means to monitor compliance with requirements 
for using pingers. The commenter urged NMFS to enforce the provisions 
of the HPTRP and the Multispecies FMP.
    Response: NMFS is concerned about enforcement. The primary 
objective of the observer program, which is a function of the Northeast 
Fisheries Science Center, is to provide NMFS with unbiased scientific 
information on protected species and fishery issues for purposes of 
stock assessments and bycatch estimates. For fisheries where observer 
coverage is mandated, those data can be made available to investigators 
if requested. NMFS Enforcement is investigating this information and 
has already initiated dialogue with the observer program on the issue 
of confidentiality of observer data, but this has not yet been 
resolved. However, an important part of the message to fishers is that 
if pingers are not used, or are used improperly, bycatch will most 
likely increase. If this occurs, more restrictive measures (i.e., 
closures) to reduce bycatch will be considered.
    Comment 31: One commenter supported NMFS' proposal to have Special 
Agents from the NMFS' Enforcement Division attend upcoming GOMTRT 
meetings in an effort to facilitate enforcement of the HPTRP.
    Response: Officials from both NMFS Enforcement Division and the 
U.S. Coast Guard attended the December 1997 meeting of the GOMTRT. This 
is expected to continue.

Re-Evaluate Proposed HPTRP

    Comment 32: Several commenters noted that new information suggests 
the proposed GOMTRP will not be sufficient to reduce harbor porpoise 
takes below the PBR level and urged NMFS to reconsider its proposal. 
One of the commenters recommended that NMFS proceed with a separate 
emergency rule to reduce harbor porpoise bycatch south of New England 
in winter/spring 1998 and/or modify the proposed GOMTRP to further 
reduce projected bycatch levels, given the expected takes south of New 
England.
    Response: NMFS has re-evaluated its August 1997 proposed rule in 
light of new information on harbor porpoise bycatch, the results of the 
spring 1997 pinger experiment, and relevant fishery management actions 
and agrees that the 1997 proposed rule would not be adequate to reduce 
bycatch to required levels. This new proposed rule is expected to 
reduce the incidental takes of harbor porpoise in the GOM and Mid-
Atlantic to the PBR level.
    Comment 33: One commenter indicated that a vessel buyback program 
in the GOM, designed to reduce groundfish effort, has reduced the 
number of sink gillnet vessels. Additionally, the commenter noted that 
some vessels have left the fishery for other fisheries or for other 
reasons. The commenter urges NMFS to consider this issue, as a 
reduction in fishing effort should effect the potential for 
interactions with harbor porpoise.
    Response: The bycatch rate for harbor porpoise in the GOM provides 
the basis for the plan and considers fishing effort. In the past, 
regardless of the possible decrease in fleet size and/or fishing 
effort, neither the bycatch rate nor the

[[Page 48684]]

total bycatch of harbor porpoise in the GOM has decreased.

General Comments

    Comment 34: One commenter was concerned that Canadian bycatch of 
harbor porpoise has decreased significantly due to the extraordinary 
limitation of fishing effort in Canada to protect groundfish. As these 
groundfish stocks recover, and fisheries resume normal operations, the 
commenter was concerned that mortality of harbor porpoise in Canadian 
waters will increase. The commenter recommended that NMFS work formally 
with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in Canada to assure 
equivalent planning to reduce mortality.
    Response: Canada has, within the last few years, developed its own 
harbor porpoise conservation strategy. It has developed an observer 
program to document takes and has also developed its own bycatch 
estimates. Canada also has a restriction in place that allows them to 
immediately close the fishery if more than a certain number of animals 
are caught. Canada has also incorporated pingers into its management 
strategy. NMFS intends to keep abreast of Canadian conservation 
activities and the status of the fisheries.
    Comment 35: One commenter expressed overall support for the 
proposed GOMTRP.
    Response: Given the information on bycatch and the distribution of 
fishing effort available when the proposed GOMTRP was published, the 
proposed take reduction measures were expected to adequately reduce 
harbor porpoise bycatch levels in the GOM.
    Since the publication of the earlier proposed rule, however, new 
bycatch and fishery information became available which indicated 
significant changes were needed in the original draft HPTRP and 
proposed rule to achieve the PBR level. In addition, the MATRT 
submitted its report to NMFS which presented new information on the 
level of bycatch in the Mid-Atlantic region. The GOMTRT reconvened on 
December 16 through 17, 1997, to discuss this information and to 
provide additional comments to NMFS. The combination of these actions 
led NMFS to decide to integrate the initially separate plans into one 
comprehensive plan. Since the HPTRP is substantially different than the 
GOMTRP, NMFS is publishing this new proposed rule to replace the 
earlier proposal.
    Comment 36: One commenter stated that NMFS is in violation of the 
MMPA for inadequately protecting harbor porpoise. The most recent data 
indicate that: (1) current harbor porpoise bycatch is three times the 
PBR level, and there has been no meaningful reduction in harbor 
porpoise bycatch; bycatch has actually increased in some areas, (2) 
there are takes occurring in the offshore gillnet fishery (which was 
previously unobserved), (3) pingers are not as effective in 
experimental fisheries as in controlled experiments, (4) NMFS has not 
completed research on the unintended effects of pingers, (5) illegal 
fishing with harbor porpoise takes are occurring in closed areas, and 
(6) no enforcement actions are being taken. Additionally, the commenter 
noted that NMFS has not complied with the statutory deadlines for 
convening a GOMTRT or publishing an HPTRP. The commenter noted that 
NMFS must take strict and immediate action to reduce the deaths of 
harbor porpoise in the GOM.
    Response: NMFS agrees that data indicate that harbor porpoise 
bycatch is close to 3.5 times the PBR level. Bycatch has decreased in 
those areas where take reduction measures have been applied, and 
bycatch has increased outside of those areas. Consequently, the overall 
bycatch has remained relatively unchanged. NMFS acknowledges that there 
are harbor porpoise takes in offshore areas and has incorporated 
management measures into this proposed rule to reduce this bycatch. It 
is currently unknown whether pingers are as effective in experimental 
fisheries as they were in scientific experiments since the experimental 
fisheries had no controls--therefore, it was unknown whether the 
bycatch rate would have been higher in nets without pingers and if so, 
how much higher. Consequently, NMFS is preparing to monitor bycatch as 
an indicator of whether or not pingers are enough of a management 
option. NMFS is currently supporting a research project to study 
habituation and displacement of harbor porpoise by pingers. NMFS agrees 
that observer data are available that appears to indicate that fishers 
may have been in closed areas, and is conducting an investigation that 
will result in enforcement actions.
    Comment 37: One commenter suggested that NMFS reevaluate the 
current weighout landings system for determining bycatch levels because 
commenter believes it is an inaccurate method of derivation of actual 
bycatch rate.
    Response: In order to estimate bycatch levels, the unit of fishing 
effort must be correlated to bycatch and must be an accurate 
representation of what is occurring in the fishery. Currently, weighout 
data are considered the best and most complete unit of effort for the 
sink gillnet fishery that meets this requirement. Logbooks are being 
evaluated for their contributions to effort projections and were used 
in the 1996 analysis to estimate the distribution of effort by area. As 
logbooks improve, they may become more useful. However, at the current 
time many of them are inaccurately or incompletely filled out. 
Therefore, fishers need to realize the importance of providing complete 
and accurate information that allows NMFS to make better analyses in 
many areas including bycatch.
    Comment 38: One commenter requested that NMFS consider the trip 
boat category in developing the final GOMTRP. The commenter noted that 
this would promote the use of ``day setting'' where vessels retrieve 
gear before returning to port; this results in shorter trips and a 
cleaner, more directed fishery.
    Response: The HPTRP is expected to meet bycatch reduction goals. 
However, this idea has merit for future discussions at take reduction 
team meetings should additional measures be necessary in the future.
    Comment 39: One commenter noted that NMFS should specifically state 
in the final HPTRP that the goal of the HPTRP was to reduce incidental 
takes of harbor porpoise to below the PBR level within 6 months of the 
plan's implementation.
    Response: This is described above in the supplemental information 
section.
    Comment 40: One commenter requested that NMFS specifically state in 
the final rule that the HPTRP had determined that its draft plan would 
reduce incidental take levels in the New England fisheries to 376 
harbor porpoises. NMFS should further specify the total number of 
harbor porpoises projected to be taken under its proposed plan.
    Response: The HPTRP and EA document includes a discussion of the 
expected harbor porpoise bycatch levels under this proposed HPTRP. 
Overall, NMFS expects harbor porpoise bycatch in the NE multispecies 
sink gillnet fishery to be reduced to 309 animals per year and expects 
harbor porpoise bycatch in the Mid-Atlantic coastal gillnet fishery to 
be reduced to below 50 animals per year.
    Comment 41: One commenter requested that NMFS explain the reason 
for delay in publishing the TRP and how it will avoid delays in future. 
NMFS should commit to acting expeditiously on future TRPs.
    Response: Two primary reasons caused delays in acting on the rule 
proposed in 1997: (1) New information

[[Page 48685]]

on bycatch was available and the GOMTRT had requested that NMFS convene 
the team when the 1996 bycatch estimates became available and (2) 
management actions being considered under the Magnuson-Stevens Act for 
GOM cod were expected to have a significant impact on the sink gillnet 
fishery in New England in the areas that are also responsible for high 
bycatch of harbor porpoise. Development of a revised proposal was 
pending an analysis of the impacts of this new information.

Classification

    The proposed rule has been determined to be significant for 
purposes of E.O. 12866.
    NMFS prepared an IRFA that describes the impact this proposed rule, 
if adopted, would have on small entities. The need for, and objectives 
of this proposed rule and a summary of the significant issues are 
described elsewhere in this preamble. The GOM sink gillnet and Mid-
Atlantic coastal gillnet fisheries are directly affected by the 
proposed action and are composed primarily of small business entities.
    In formulating this proposed rule, NMFS considered a number of 
alternatives: Alternative 1, the proposed action; Alternative 2, no 
action; Alternative 3, wide-spread use of pingers; and Alternative 4, 
wide-spread time and area closures.
    Alternative 1, the proposed action, a combination of area closures 
and pinger requirements, is the preferred alternative because it will 
achieve the goals of the MMPA while minimizing the overall economic 
impact.
    Under Alternative 1, it is estimated that 113 vessels (41% of 
total, 64% of impacted) would see their total costs increase more than 
5%. If the 10% threshold is used, 70 vessels (26% of total, 40% of 
impacted) would see their total costs increase more than 10%. The cost 
increase was due to purchasing new gear or pingers, and the cost of 
gear marking requirements. Vessels could avoid these cost increases by 
not fishing during the time periods when they would have to modify 
their gear or use pingers. However, they would then lose some 
percentage of their yearly profit. The total economic losses of the 
proposed action from the New England and the Mid-Atlantic regions are 
estimated to be between $613 thousand dollars and $5.3 million dollars 
depending on the number of vessels which can shift their effort to open 
areas and the number which use pingers.
    The costs associated with this proposed rule are not related to 
reporting requirements. To the extent that the proposed rule would 
allow fishery participants to select whether to acquire a new gear type 
or avoid the time/area closures, performance requirements can be 
substituted for design requirements at the participant's discretion. 
Since most of the affected entities are small entities, providing an 
exemption for small entities would not enable the agency to meet the 
conservation and management goals of the MMPA.
    Currently, the NE sink gillnet fishery is subject to regulations 
under the NE Multispecies Fishery Management Plan. Recent NE groundfish 
conservation measures were proposed under Framework Adjustment 25 to 
the NE Multispecies FMP. The predominant Mid-Atlantic gillnet fisheries 
are not subject to regulations under a fishery management plan at this 
time. The proposed rule is designed to complement Framework 25 and 
other fishery management regulations. The recommendations of the GOMTRT 
were modified by NMFS to take into consideration the combined effect of 
Framework 25 and the HPTRP on NE fishermen.
    Under Alternative 2, there would be no additional costs to the 
fleet either through gear modifications, purchase of pingers or losses 
in surplus due to time and area closures. Therefore, based on costs 
which the fleet would incur, this alternative is the least costly when 
compared to the proposed action or non-preferred alternatives. However, 
there is a much larger cost in terms of foregone harbor porpoise 
protection. Based on the contingent valuation study conducted by the 
University of Maryland (Strand, et al., 1994), households in 
Massachusetts were willing to pay between $176 dollars and $364 dollars 
to eliminate human induced mortality of 1,000 harbor porpoise. Using 
the lower figure of $176 dollars multiplied by the number of 
Massachusetts households, and amortizing the total using a 7% rate 
yielded a yearly value of roughly $28 million dollars. This means that 
decreasing mortality by 1,000 animals would increase consumer surplus 
by $28 million dollars. Therefore, when compared against the other 
alternatives, the status quo is far inferior because it does not 
achieve the same level of consumer surplus due to a higher level of 
harbor porpoise mortality.
    Alternative 3 would require all vessels fishing between September 
and May in New England, and between January and April in the Mid-
Atlantic to use pingers. Each vessel owner would decide whether to 
purchase pingers based on their own set of circumstances. Each pinger 
was estimated to cost $50 dollars based on information obtained from 
Sea Sampling personnel. It is assumed that there would be one pinger 
required per net, and one on each buoy line. Using the average number 
of nets and strings fished in each region, a weighted average $3,437 
dollars per vessel was estimated for the cost of pingers which 
translates into a total fleet cost of $608 thousand dollars.
    The cost of pingers was estimated to be $608 thousand dollars if 
all vessels purchase pingers. However, some vessels may be unable to 
afford pingers. This would increase the total losses because vessels 
which were unable to afford pingers would have to stay tied up at the 
dock and therefore lose revenue. It is assumed that losses in producer 
surplus are linearly related to the percent of vessels which purchase 
pingers. For example, if 50 percent of the vessels use pingers, then 
the losses in producer surplus and crew rents will be reduced by 50 
percent. Total pinger costs are also estimated based on the percent of 
vessels which purchase pingers. Losses calculated using these 
assumptions are estimated to be between zero and $7.4 million dollars.
    In reality, vessels can either purchase pingers and continue to 
fish, shift their effort to other areas, or elect not to purchase 
pingers and stay tied up at the dock. Because the time and areas where 
pingers are required are quite extensive, it is unlikely that vessels 
will be able to switch areas and continue fishing without pingers. 
Without a more formal model, it is not possible to predict the number 
of vessels which will adopt either strategy.
    This alternative is not preferred because it is highly unlikely 
that it could achieve the bycatch reduction goals of the MMPA for 
harbor porpoise because pingers have not been proven to be effective in 
all areas at all times. In addition, there are a number of scientific 
concerns regarding the impacts of widespread pinger use on harbor 
porpoise and other marine organisms.
    The total loss in producer surplus and crew rents for both regions 
from Alternative 4 would be $7.4 million dollars. Overall, 177 vessels 
would be impacted for a per vessel loss of roughly $42 thousand 
dollars. As described in the IRFA, the cost to the fishery in terms of 
economic impacts would vary by area closure. Refer to the IRFA for a 
discussion of the impacts of this alternative based on the closure 
variations.
    Vessels could shift their operations to other areas and make up for 
any revenue loss. This puts bounds on the losses of

[[Page 48686]]

between zero, if revenue was totally replaced in other areas, and $7.4 
million dollars. For this alternative, it will be more difficult for 
vessels to shift to other times and areas because the areas are all 
closed at the same time. There is the opportunity for New England 
vessels to move to the Mid-Atlantic in the fall, or the NE closure 
area. Some may do so, but it is likely that most would not be able to 
switch. Gillnet vessels have traditionally fished in certain times and 
areas depending on many factors, including the vessels homeport. 
Because these times and areas are so extensive, it is unlikely that 
many vessels will be able to shift their operations and replace lost 
revenue.
    Because the times and areas designated for closure are so 
extensive, it is likely that this alternative would reduce harbor 
porpoise mortality to close to zero. The trade-off for this reduction 
would be a much higher cost to the fishing fleet, and possibly higher 
likelihood of business failure, therefore this alternative is not 
preferred. However, it is not possible to evaluate the trade-off 
between reduced harbor porpoise mortality and increased costs. Based on 
the contingent valuation study (Strand et al., 94) discussed earlier, 
harbor porpoise are highly valued by consumers.
    This proposed rule contains a collection-of-information requirement 
subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). This collection-of-
information requirement has been submitted to the Office of Management 
and Budget for approval. Under the PRA, gear marking regulations are 
considered a reporting requirement, and the burden hours need to be 
estimated.
    The proposed rule requires nets in the Mid-Atlantic region to be 
marked in order to identify the vessel and enforce net cap provisions. 
It is estimated that each tag will take 1 minute to attach to the net. 
Each net requires two net tags. The total number of nets which will 
need to be tagged is estimated by assuming that combination gillnet 
vessels are, on average, fishing 60 nets, and all other vessels are, on 
average, fishing 30 nets. This gives a weighted average of 49 nets per 
vessel. Using these figures, the total burden hours for all vessels 
impacted in the Mid-Atlantic region is estimated to be 123.9 hours, or 
1.63 hours per vessel.
    The 76 vessel owner/operators will have to order net tags. 
Estimated at 2 minutes per request, this adds a burden of 2.5 hours. 
Depending on whether net tags are lost or damaged, vessels are expected 
to only have to comply once over three years. The annual average over 
the 3 years would be 25.3 vessels affected and 42 hours.
    Public comment is sought regarding: Whether this proposed 
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of 
the functions of the agency, including whether the information has 
practical utility; the accuracy of the burden estimate; ways to enhance 
the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; 
and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information, 
including through the use of automated collection techniques or other 
forms of information technology.
    Send comments regarding these burden estimates or any other aspect 
of the data requirements, including suggestions for reducing the 
burden, to NMFS (see ADDRESSES) and to the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 
20503 (ATTN: NOAA Desk Officer).
    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required 
to respond to nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to 
comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of 
the PRA unless that collection of information displays a currently 
valid OMB control number.

References

Kraus, S., A. Read, E. Anderson, A. Solow, T. Spradlin, and J. 
Williamson. 1995. A field test of the use of acoustic alarms to 
reduce incidental mortality of harbor porpoise in gillnets. Draft 
final report to the Gulf of Maine Take Reduction Team.
Kraus, S., A. Read, E. Anderson, A. Solow, T. Spradlin, and J. 
Williamson. 1997. Acoustic alarms reduce porpoise mortality. Nature. 
Vol. 388: p. 525.
Kraus, S., S. Brault, and K. Baldwin. 1997. A springtime field test 
of the use of pingers to reduce incidental mortality of harbor 
porpoises in gill nets. Draft Final Report.
Reeves, R., R. Hofman, G. Silber, and D. Wilkinson. 1996. Acoustic 
deterrence of harmful marine mammal-fishery interactions: 
Proceedings of a workshop held in Seattle, Washington, 20-22 March 
1996. U.S. Dept. Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-OPR-10, 68 pp.
Waring, G., D. Palka, K. Mullin, J. Hain, L. Hansen, and K. Bisack. 
1997. U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Marine Mammal Stock 
Assessments--1996. Woods Hole, MA: NMFS, NEFSC, NOAA Technical 
Memo., NMFS-NE-114

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 229

    Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business 
information, Fisheries, Marine mammals, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

    Dated: September 3, 1998.
Rolland A. Schmitten,
Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries 
Service.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 229 is 
proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 229--AUTHORIZATION FOR COMMERCIAL FISHERIES UNDER THE MARINE 
MAMMAL PROTECTION ACT OF 1972

    1. The authority citation for part 229 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.

    2. In Sec. 229.2, definitions for ``large mesh gillnet,'' ``mesh 
size,'' ``Mudhole,'' ``small mesh gillnet,'' ``southern Mid-Atlantic 
waters,'' ``stowed,'' ``tie-down,'' and ``waters off New Jersey'' are 
added, in alphabetical order, to read as follows:


Sec. 229.2  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Large mesh gillnet means a gillnet constructed with a mesh size of 
7(17.78 cm) inches to 18 inches (45.72 cm).
* * * * *
    Mesh size means the distance between inside knot to inside knot. 
Mesh size is measured as described in Sec. 648.80(f)(1).
* * * * *
    Mudhole means waters off New Jersey bounded as follows: From the 
point 40 deg.30' N. latitude where it intersects with the shoreline of 
New Jersey east to its intersection with 73 deg.20' W. longitude, then 
south to its intersection with 40 deg.05' N. latitude, then west to its 
intersection with the shoreline of New Jersey.
* * * * *
    Small mesh gillnet means a gillnet constructed with a mesh size 
less than 7 inches (17.78 cm).
    Southern Mid-Atlantic waters means all state and Federal waters off 
the States of Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina, bounded 
on the north by a line extending eastward from the northern shoreline 
of Delaware at 38 deg.47' N. latitude (the latitude that corresponds 
with Cape Henlopen, DE), east to its intersection with 72 deg.30'W 
longitude, south to the 33 deg.51' N. latitude (the latitude that 
corresponds with the North Carolina/South Carolina border), and then 
west to its intersection with the shoreline of the North Carolina/South 
Carolina border.
* * * * *
    Stowed means nets that are unavailable for use and that are stored 
in accordance with the regulations found in Sec. 648.81(e) of this 
title.
* * * * *

[[Page 48687]]

    Tie-down refers to twine used between the floatline and the lead 
line as a way to create a pocket or bag of netting to trap fish alive.
* * * * * *
    Waters off New Jersey means all state and Federal waters off New 
Jersey, bounded on the north by a line extending eastward from the 
southern shoreline of Long Island, NY at 40 deg.40' N. latitude, on the 
south by a line extending eastward from the northern shoreline of 
Delaware at 38 deg.47' N. latitude (the latitude that corresponds with 
Cape Henlopen, DE), and on the east by the 72 deg.30'W longitude. This 
area includes the Mudhole.
* * * * *
    3. In Sec. 229.3, paragraphs (l) through (q) are added to read as 
follows:


Sec. 229.3  Prohibitions.

* * * * *
    (l) It is prohibited to fish with, set, haul back, possess on board 
a vessel unless stowed, or fail to remove sink gillnet gear or gillnet 
gear capable of catching multispecies, with the exception of a single 
pelagic gillnet (as described and used as set forth in 
Sec. 648.81(f)(2)(ii)) of this title, from the areas and for the times 
specified in Sec. 229.33(a)(1) through (a)(6), except as provided in 
Sec. 229.33(d)(1) through (d)(4).
    (m) It is prohibited to fish with, set, haul back, possess on board 
a vessel unless stowed, or fail to remove any gillnet gear from the 
areas and for the times as specified in Sec. 229.34(b)(1)(ii) or (iii) 
or (b)(2)(ii).
    (n) It is prohibited to fish with, set, haul back, possess on board 
a vessel unless stowed, or fail to remove any large mesh or small mesh 
gillnet gear from the areas and for the times specified in 
Sec. 229.34(c)(1) through (4) unless the gear complies with the 
specified gear restrictions set forth in those provisions.
    (o) Beginning on January 1, 1999, it is prohibited to fish with, 
set, or haul back sink gillnets or gillnet gear, or leave such gear in 
closed areas where pingers are required, as specified under 
Sec. 229.33(c)(1) through (4), unless the operator possesses on board 
the vessel a valid pinger certification training certificate issued by 
NMFS.
    (p) Beginning on January 1, 2000, it is prohibited to fish with, 
set, haul back, or possess any gillnet gear in Mid-Atlantic waters in 
the areas and during the times specified under Sec. 229.34(d) unless 
the gear is properly tagged in compliance with that provision and 
unless a net tag certificate is on board the vessel. It is prohibited 
to refuse to produce a net tag certificate or net tags upon the request 
of an authorized officer.
    (q) Net tag requirement. Beginning on January 1, 2000, no vessel 
may fish with gillnet gear in New Jersey waters from January 1 through 
April 30 or in southern Mid-Atlantic waters from February 1 through 
April 30 unless the gillnet is properly tagged. In order to be properly 
tagged, one tag must be secured to each bridle of every net within the 
string of nets. The owner or operator of fishing vessels must indicate 
to NMFS the number of gillnet tags that they are requesting up to the 
maximum number of nets allowed in those paragraphs and must include a 
check for the cost of the tags. Vessel owners and operators will be 
given notice with instructions informing them of the costs associated 
with this tagging requirement and directions for obtaining tags. Tag 
numbers will be unique for each vessel and recorded on a certificate. 
The vessel operator must produce the certificate and all net tags upon 
request by an authorized officer.
    4. In subpart C, a new Sec. 229.33 is added to read as follows:


Sec. 229.33  Harbor Porpoise Take Reduction Plan implementing 
regulations--Gulf of Maine.

    (a) Restrictions--(1) Northeast Closure Area. From August 15 
through September 13 of each fishing year, it is prohibited to fish 
with, set, haul back, possess on board a vessel unless stowed, or fail 
to remove sink gillnet gear or gillnet gear capable of catching 
multispecies, with the exception of a single pelagic gillnet (as 
described in Sec. 648.81(f)(2)(ii) of this title), from Northeast 
Closure Area. The Northeast Closure Area is the area bounded by 
straight lines connecting the following points in the order stated.

                         Northeast Closure Area                         
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Point                      N. Lat.            W. Long.    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NE1..............................  (\1\)               68 deg.55.0',    
NE2..............................  43 deg.29.6'        68 deg.55.0',    
NE3..............................  44 deg.04.4 \1\     67 deg.48.7',    
NE4..............................  44 deg.06.9'        67 deg.52.8',    
NE5..............................  44 deg.31.2'        67 deg.02.7',    
NE6..............................  (\1\)               67 deg.02.7'     
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Maine shoreline.                                                    

    (2) Mid-coast Closure Area. From September 15 through May 31, it is 
prohibited to fish with, set, haul back, possess on board a vessel 
unless stowed, or fail to remove sink gillnet gear or gillnet gear 
capable of catching multispecies, with the exception of a single 
pelagic gillnet (as described in Sec. 648.81(f)(2)(ii) of this title), 
from the Mid-Coast Closure Area, except as provided in 
Sec. 229.33(d)(1).
    The Mid-Coast Closure Area is the area bounded by straight lines 
connecting the following points in the order stated:

                         Mid-Coast Closure Area                         
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Point                      N. Lat.            W. Long.    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MC1..............................  42 deg.30'          (\1\)            
MC2..............................  42 deg.30 \1\       70 deg.15'       
MC3..............................  42 deg.40'          70 deg.15'       
MC4..............................  42 deg.40'          70 deg.00'       
MC5..............................  43 deg.00'          70 deg.00'       
MC6..............................  43 deg.00'          69 deg.o30'      
MC7..............................  43 deg.30'          69 deg.30'       
MC8..............................  43 deg.30'          69 deg.00'       
MC9..............................  (\2\)               69 deg.00'       
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Massachusetts shoreline.                                            
\2\ Maine shoreline.                                                    

    (3) Massachusetts Bay Closure Area. From February 1 through May 31, 
it is prohibited to fish with, set, haul back, possess on board a 
vessel unless stowed, or fail to remove sink gillnet gear or gillnet 
gear capable of catching multispecies, with the exception of a single 
pelagic gillnet (as described in Sec. 648.81(f)(2)(ii) of this title), 
from the Massachusetts Bay Closure Area, except as provided in 
Sec. 229.33(d)(2). The Massachusetts Bay Closure Area is the area 
bounded by straight lines connecting the following points in the order 
stated.

                     Massachusetts Bay Closure Area                     
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Point                      N. Lat.            W. Long.    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MB1..............................  42 deg.30'          (\1\)',          
MB2..............................  42 deg.30'          70 deg.30',      
MB3..............................  42 deg.12'          70 deg.30',      
MB4..............................  42 deg.12'          70 deg.00',      
MB5..............................  (\2\)               70 deg.00',      
MB6..............................  42 deg.00'          (\2\),           
MB7..............................  42 deg.00'          (\1\)            
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Massachusetts shoreline.                                            
\2\ Cape Cod shoreline.                                                 

    (4) Cape Cod South Closure Area. From September 15 through April 
30, it is prohibited to fish with, set, haul back, possess on board a 
vessel unless stowed, or fail to remove sink gillnet gear or gillnet 
gear capable of catching multispecies, with the exception of a single 
pelagic gillnet (as described in Sec. 648.81(f)(2)(ii) of this title), 
from Cape Cod South Closure Area, except as provided in 
Sec. 229.33(d)(3).
    The Cape Cod South Closure Area is the area bounded by straight 
lines connecting the following points in the order stated.

                       Cape Cod South Closure Area                      
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Point                      N. Lat.            W. Long.    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CCS1.............................  (\1\)               71 deg.45',      

[[Page 48688]]

                                                                        
CCS2.............................  40 deg.40'          71 deg.45',      
CCS3.............................  40 deg.40'          70 deg.30',      
CCS4.............................  (\2\)               70 deg.30'       
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Rhode Island shoreline                                              
\2\ Massachusetts shoreline.                                            

    ( 5) Offshore Closure Area. From September 15 through May 31, it is 
prohibited to fish with, set, haul back, possess on board a vessel 
unless stowed, or fail to remove sink gillnet gear or gillnet gear 
capable of catching multispecies, with the exception of a single 
pelagic gillnet (as described in Sec. 648.81(f)(2)(ii)of this title), 
from Offshore Closure Area, except as provided in Sec. 229.33(d)(4). 
This requirement becomes effective November 1, 1998.
    The Offshore Closure Area is the area bounded by straight lines 
connecting the following points in the order stated:

                          Offshore Closure Area                         
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Point                      N. Lat.            W. Long.    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OFS1.............................  42 deg.50'          69 deg.35'       
OFS2.............................  43 deg.10'          69 deg.10'       
OFS3.............................  43 deg.10'          67 deg.40'       
OFS4.............................  42 deg.10'          69 deg.10'       
OFS5.............................  42 deg.10'          69 deg.30'       
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (6) Cashes Ledge Closure Area. For the month of February of each 
fishing year, it is prohibited to fish with, set, haul back, possess on 
board a vessel unless stowed, or fail to remove sink gillnet gear or 
gillnet gear capable of catching multispecies, with the exception of a 
single pelagic gillnet (as described in Sec. 648.81(f)(2)(ii) of this 
title), from the Cashes Ledge Closure Area. The Cashes Ledge Closure 
Area is the area bounded by straight lines connecting the following 
points in the order stated:

                        Cashes Ledge Closure Area                       
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Point                      N. Lat.            W. Long.    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CL1..............................  42 deg.30'          69 deg.00',      
CL2..............................  42 deg.30'          68 deg.30',      
CL3..............................  43 deg.00'          68 deg.30',      
CL4..............................  43 deg.00'          69 deg.00',      
CL5..............................  42 deg.30'          69 deg.00'       
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (b) Pingers. (1) Pinger Specifications. For the purposes of this 
subpart, a pinger is an acoustic deterrent device which, when immersed 
in water, broadcasts a 10 kHz (2 kHz) sound at 132 dB 
(4 dB) re 1 micropascal at 1 m, lasting 300 milliseconds 
( 15 milliseconds), and repeating every 4 seconds 
( .2 seconds).
    (2) Pinger attachment. An operating and functional pinger must be 
attached at the end of each string of the gillnets and at the bridle of 
every net within a string of nets.
    (c) Pinger training and certification. Beginning on January 1, 
1999, the operator of a vessel may not fish with, set or haul back sink 
gillnets or gillnet gear, or allow such gear to be in closed areas 
where pingers are required as specified under paragraph (b) of this 
section, unless the operator has satisfactorily completed the pinger 
certification training program, and, possesses on board the vessel a 
valid pinger training certificate issued by NMFS. Notice will be given 
announcing the times and locations of pinger certification training 
programs.
    (d) Use of pingers in closed areas. (1) Vessels, subject to the 
restrictions and regulations specified in paragraph (a) of this 
section, may fish in the Mid-coast Closure Area from September 15 
through May 31 of each fishing year, provided that pingers are used in 
accordance with the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section.
    (2) Vessels, subject to the restrictions and regulations specified 
in paragraph (a) of this section, may fish in the Massachusetts Bay 
Closure Area from February 1 through the last day of February and from 
April 1 through May 31 of each fishing year, provided that pingers are 
used in accordance with the requirements of paragraph (b) of this 
section.
    (3) Vessels, subject to the restrictions and regulations specified 
in paragraph (a) of this section, may fish in the Cape Cod South 
Closure Area from September 15 through the last day of February and 
from April 1 through April 30 of each fishing year, provided that 
pingers are used in accordance with the requirements of paragraph (b) 
of this section.
    (4) Vessels, subject to the restrictions and regulations specified 
in paragraph (a) of this section, may fish in the Offshore Closure Area 
from September 15 through May 31 of each fishing year, with the 
exception of the Cashes Ledge Closure Area. From February 1 through the 
end of February the area within the Offshore Closure Area defined as 
``Cashes Ledge'' is closed to all fishing with sink gillnets. Vessels 
subject to the restrictions and regulation specified in paragraph (a) 
of this section may fish in the Offshore Closure Area outside of the 
Cashes Ledge Area from February 1 through the end of February provided 
that pingers are used in accordance with the requirements of paragraph 
(b) of this section.
    (e) Other special measures. The Assistant Administrator may revise 
the requirements of this section through notification published in the 
Federal Register if:
    (1) NMFS verifies one year after plan implementation, that pinger 
operating effectiveness in the commercial fishery is not adequate to 
reduce bycatch to acceptable levels with the current plan.
    (2) NMFS determines that the boundary or timing of a closed area 
are not appropriate, or that gear modifications (including pingers) are 
not meeting bycatch reduction expectations. Specifically, observer data 
shows that PBR has been exceeded between January 1 and April 30 every 
year between 1992-1996. Therefore, NMFS will review effort and bycatch 
data and make a determination by June 30 each year if additional 
bycatch reduction measures beyond the TRP are needed for the remainder 
of the calendar year to keep the annual bycatch level below the PBR 
level.
    5. In subpart C, a new Sec. 229.34 is added to read as follows:


Sec. 229.34  Harbor Porpoise Take Reduction Plan--Mid-Atlantic.

    (a)(1) Regulated waters. The regulations in this section apply to 
all waters in the Mid-Atlantic bounded on the east by 72 deg.30' W. 
longitude and on the south by the North Carolina/South Carolina border 
(33 deg.51' N. latitude), except for the areas exempted in paragraph 
(a)(2) of this section.
    (2) Exempted waters. All waters landward of the first bridge over 
any embayment, harbor, or inlet will be exempted. The regulations in 
this section do not apply to waters landward of the following lines:

New York

40 deg.45.70' N 72 deg.45.15'W TO 40 deg. 45.72' N 72 deg.45.30' W 
(Moriches Bay Inlet)
40 deg.37.32' N 73 deg. 18.40' W TO 40 deg. 38.00' N 73 deg.18.56' W 
(Fire Island Inlet)
40 deg.34.40' N 73 deg.34.55' W TO 40 deg.35.08' N 73 deg.35.22' W 
(Jones Inlet)



New Jersey
39 deg. 45.90# N 74 deg.05.90' W TO 39 deg.45.15' N 74 deg. 06.20' W 
(Barnegat Inlet)
39 deg.30.70' N 74 deg.16.70' W TO 39 deg.26.30' N 74 deg.19.75' W 
(Beach Haven to Brigantine Inlet)
38 deg.56.20' N 74 deg.51.70' W TO 38 deg.56.20' N 74 deg.51.90' W 
(Cape May Inlet)
39 deg.16.70# N 75 deg.14.60' W TO 39 deg.11.25' N 75 deg.23.90' W 
(Delaware Bay)



Maryland/Virginia 38 deg.19.48' N 75 deg.05.10' W TO 38 deg.19.35' N 
75 deg.05.25' W (Ocean City Inlet)

[[Page 48689]]

37 deg.52.' N 75 deg.24.30' W TO 37 deg.11.90' N 75 deg.48.30' W 
(Chincoteague to Ship Shoal Inlet)
37 deg.11.10' N 75 deg.49.30' W TO 37 deg.10.65' N 75 deg.49.60' W 
(Little Inlet)
37 deg.07.00' N 75 deg.53.75' W TO 37 deg.05.30' N 75 deg.56.' W 
(Smith Island Inlet)

North Carolina

    All marine and tidal waters landward of the 72 COLREGS 
demarcation line (International Regulations for Preventing 
Collisions at Sea, 1972), as depicted or noted on nautical charts 
published by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 
(Coast Charts 1:80,000 scale), and as described in 33 CFR part 80.

    (b) Restrictions--(1) Waters off New Jersey.
    (i) General Restrictions. From January 1 through April 30, it is 
prohibited to fish with, set, haul back, possess on board a vessel 
unless stowed, or fail to remove any gillnet gear from the waters off 
New Jersey unless the gear complies with the applicable gear 
characteristics specified under paragraph (c)(1) or (2) of this 
section.
    (ii) Closure for large mesh gear. From April 1 through April 20, it 
is prohibited to fish with, set, haul back, possess on board a vessel 
unless stowed, or fail to remove any large mesh gillnet gear from the 
waters off New Jersey.
    (iii) Mudhole closure. From February 15 through March 15, it is 
prohibited to fish with, set, haul back, possess on board a vessel 
unless stowed, or fail to remove any gillnet gear from the waters off 
New Jersey known as the Mudhole.
    (2) Southern Mid-Atlantic waters. (i) General restrictions. From 
February 1 through April 30, it is prohibited to fish with, set, haul 
back, possess on board a vessel unless stowed, or fail to remove any 
gillnet gear from the southern Mid-Atlantic waters unless the gear 
complies with the applicable gear characteristics specified under 
paragraph (c)(2) or (3) of this section.
    (ii) Closure for large mesh gear. From February 15 through March 
15, it is prohibited to fish with, set, haul back, possess on board a 
vessel unless stowed, or fail to remove any large mesh gillnet gear 
from the southern Mid-Atlantic waters.
    (c) Gear requirements and limitations. (1) Waters off New Jersey-
large mesh gear requirements and limitations. From January 1 through 
April 30 of each year, no person may fish with large mesh gillnet gear 
in waters off New Jersey unless the gear complies with the specified 
gear characteristics. During this period, no person who owns or 
operates the vessel may allow the vessel to enter or remain in waters 
off New Jersey with large mesh gillnet gear on board unless the gear 
complies with the specified gear characteristics or unless the gear is 
stowed. In order to comply with these specified gear characteristics, 
the gear must have all the following characteristics:
    (i) Floatline Length. The floatline is no longer than 4,800 ft 
(1,463.0 m), and if the gear is used in the Mudhole, the floatline is 
no longer than 3,900 ft (1,188.7 m).
    (ii) Twine Size. The twine is at least 0.04 inches (0.090 cm) in 
diameter.
    (iii) Size of nets. Individual nets or net panels are not more than 
300 ft (91.44 m), or 50 fathoms, in length.
    (iv) Number of nets. The total number of individual nets or net 
panels for a vessel, including all nets on board the vessel, hauled by 
the vessel or deployed by the vessel, does not exceed 80.
    (v) Tie-down system. The gillnet is equipped with tie-downs spaced 
not more than 15 ft (4.6 m) apart along the floatline, and each tie-
down is not more than 48 inches (18.90 cm) in length from the point 
where it connects to the floatline to the point where it connects to 
the lead line.
    (vi) Tagging requirements. Beginning January 1, 2000, the gillnet 
is equipped with two tags per net, with one tag secured to each bridle 
of every net within a string of nets.
    (2) Waters off New Jersey--small mesh gillnet gear requirements and 
limitations. From January 1 through April 30 of each year, no person 
may fish with small mesh gillnet gear in waters off New Jersey unless 
the gear complies with the specified gear characteristics. During this 
period, no person who owns or operates the vessel may allow the vessel 
to enter or remain in waters off New Jersey with small mesh gillnet 
gear on board unless the gear complies with the specified gear 
characteristics or unless the gear is stowed. In order to comply with 
these specified gear characteristics, the gear must have all the 
following characteristics:
    (i) Floatline Length. The floatline is less than 3,000 ft (914.4 
m).
    (ii) Twine Size. The twine is at least 0.03 inches (0.080 cm) in 
diameter. This requirement only applies to mesh more than 4 inches 
(10.2 cm) but less than 7 inches (17.78 cm) in size.
    (iii) Size of nets. Individual nets or net panels are not more than 
300 ft (1.4 m or 50 fathoms) in length.
    (iv) Number of nets. The total number of individual nets or net 
panels for a vessel, including all nets on board the vessel, hauled by 
the vessel or deployed by the vessel, does not exceed 45.
    (v) Tie-down System. Tie-downs are prohibited.
    (vi) Tagging requirements. Beginning January 1, 2000, the gillnet 
is equipped with two tags per net, with one tag secured to each bridle 
of every net within a string of nets.
    (3) Southern Mid-Atlantic waters--large mesh gear requirements and 
limitations. From February 1 through April 30 of each year, no person 
may fish with large mesh gillnet gear in Southern Mid-Atlantic waters 
unless the gear complies with the specified gear characteristics. 
During this period, no person who owns or operates the vessel may allow 
the vessel to enter or remain in Southern Mid-Atlantic waters with 
large mesh sink gillnet gear on board unless the gear complies with the 
specified gear characteristics or unless the gear is stowed. In order 
to comply with these specified gear characteristics, the gear must have 
all the following characteristics:
    (i) Floatline Length. The floatline is no longer than 3,900 ft 
(1,188.7 m).
    (ii) Twine Size. The twine is at least 0.04 inches (0.090 cm) in 
diameter.
    (iii) Size of nets. Individual nets or net panels are not more than 
300 ft (91.4 m or 50 fathoms) in length.
    (iv) Number of nets. The total number of individual nets or net 
panels for a vessel, including all nets on board the vessel, hauled by 
the vessel or deployed by the vessel, does not exceed 80.
    (v) Tie-down system. The gillnet is equipped with tie-downs spaced 
not more than 15 ft (4.6 m) apart along the floatline, and each tie-
down is not more than 48 inches (18.90 cm) in length from the point 
where it connects to the floatline to the point where it connects to 
the lead line.
    (vi) Tagging requirements. Beginning January 1, 2000, the gillnet 
is equipped with two tags per net, with one tag secured to each bridle 
of every net within a string of nets.
    (4) Southern Mid-Atlantic waters--small mesh gillnet gear 
requirements and limitations. From February 1 through April 30 of each 
year, no person may fish with small mesh gillnet gear in waters off New 
Jersey unless the gear complies with the specified gear 
characteristics. During this period, no person who owns or operates the 
vessel may allow the vessel to enter or remain in Southern Mid-Atlantic 
waters with small mesh gillnet gear on board unless the gear complies 
with the specified gear characteristics or unless the gear is stowed. 
In order to comply with these specified gear characteristics, the gear 
must have all the following characteristics:
    (i) Floatline Length. The floatline is no longer than 2118 ft 
(645.6 m).

[[Page 48690]]

    (ii) Twine Size. The twine is at least 0.03 inches (0.080 cm) in 
diameter. This requirement applies only to mesh sizes <4 inches but >7 
inches.
    (iii) Size of nets. Individual nets or net panels are not more than 
300 ft (91.4 m or 50 fathoms) in length.
    (iv) Number of nets. The total number of individual nets or net 
panels for a vessel, including all nets on board the vessel, hauled by 
the vessel or deployed by the vessel, does not exceed 45.
    (v) Tie-down System. Tie-downs are prohibited.
    (vi) Tagging requirements. Beginning January 1, 2000, the gillnet 
is equipped with two tags per net, with one tag secured to each bridle 
of every net within a string of nets.
    (d) Other special measures. The Assistant Administrator may revise 
the requirements of this section through notification published in the 
Federal Register if:
    (1) NMFS verifies one year after plan implementation, that pinger 
operating effectiveness in the commercial fishery is not adequate to 
reduce bycatch to acceptable levels with the current plan.
    (2) NMFS determines that the boundary or timing of a closed area 
are not appropriate, or that gear modifications (including pingers)are 
not meeting bycatch reduction expectations. Specifically, NMFS will 
review effort and bycatch data and make a determination by June 30 each 
year if additional bycatch reduction measures are needed for the 
remainder of the calendar year to keep the annual bycatch level below 
the PBR level.

[FR Doc. 98-24306 Filed 9-8-98; 11:40 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P