Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental to Commercial Fishing Operations; Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan Regulations, 36585-36621 [2014-14936]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 124 (Friday, June 27, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 36585-36621]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-14936]



[[Page 36585]]

Vol. 79

Friday,

No. 124

June 27, 2014

Part II





Department of Commerce





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





National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration





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





50 CFR Part 229





Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental to Commercial Fishing Operations; 
Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan Regulations; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 79 , No. 124 / Friday, June 27, 2014 / Rules 
and Regulations

[[Page 36586]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 229

[Docket No. 130201095-4400-02]
RIN 0648-BC90


Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental to Commercial Fishing 
Operations; Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan Regulations

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS issues this final rule to amend the regulations 
implementing the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan (Plan). This 
rule revises the management measures for reducing the incidental 
mortality and serious injury to the North Atlantic right whale 
(Eubalaena glacialis), humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae), and fin 
whale (Balaenoptera physalus) in commercial trap/pot and gillnet 
fisheries to further the goals of the Marine Mammal Protection Act 
(MMPA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The measures identified in 
the Plan are also intended to benefit minke whales (Balaenoptera 
acutorostrata), which are not classified as strategic stocks under the 
MMPA, but are known to be taken incidentally in commercial fisheries.

DATES: These regulations are effective August 26, 2014. Section 
229.32(f)(2)(vi) (gear marking requirements and gear modifications in 
the Southeast) is applicable November 1, 2014 and Sec.  229.32(b) and 
(c)(2)(i) (gear marking requirements and minimum number of traps per 
trawl requirement in the Northeast) are applicable June 1, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Regulatory Impact Review/Record of Decision for this action can be 
obtained from the Plan Web site listed under Electronic Access.
    Written comments regarding the burden hour estimates or other 
aspects of the collection of information requirements contained in this 
final rule can be submitted to David Gouveia, NMFS, Greater Atlantic 
Regional Fisheries Office, 55 Great Republic Dr, Gloucester, MA 10930 
or Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs by email at OIRA_submissions@omb.eop.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kate Swails, NMFS, Greater Atlantic 
Region, 978-282-8481, Kate.Swails@noaa.gov; Kristy Long, NMFS Office of 
Protected Resources, 301-427-8440, Kristy.Long@noaa.gov; or Barb 
Zoodsma, NMFS Southeast Region, 904-321-2806, Barb.Zoodsma@noaa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access

    Several of the background documents for the Plan and the take 
reduction planning process can be downloaded from the Plan Web site at 
https://www.nero.noaa.gov/whaletrp/. The complete text of the 
regulations implementing the Plan can be found either in the Code of 
Federal Regulations (CFR) at 50 CFR 229.32 or downloaded from the Web 
site, along with a guide to the regulations.

Background

    The Marine Mammal Protection Act Section 118 requires NMFS to 
implement a Take Reduction Plan to reduce the serious injury and 
mortality of marine mammals incidental to commercial fishing operations 
to insignificant levels approaching a zero mortality and serious injury 
rate. NMFS first implemented regulations establishing the Atlantic 
Large Whale Take Reduction Plan (Plan) to meet this requirement in 
1997. Section 118(f)(7)(E) of the MMPA requires the Take Reduction Team 
(Team) and NMFS to meet every six months, or at other such intervals as 
NMFS determines are necessary, to monitor the implementation of the 
final Plan until such time that NMFS determines that the objectives of 
the Plan have been met.
    Section 118(f)(7)(F) requires NMFS to amend the Plan and 
implementing regulations as necessary to meet the requirements of 
Section 118 to reduce incidental serious injury and mortality to a 
level approaching ZMRG, taking into account the economics of the 
fishery, the availability of existing technology, and existing State or 
regional fishery management plans. The Team and NMFS have met and 
amended the Plan and implementing regulations several times since 1997 
in an ongoing effort to ensure the requirements of the MMPA regarding 
take reduction of large whales continue to be met.
    This final rule is the latest step in this ongoing process. The 
rule implements modifications to the Plan suggested by the Team and 
public, as well as modifications deemed necessary by NMFS to further 
enhance the likelihood of meeting the requirements and further the 
goals of the MMPA, as well as the ESA. Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA 
requires federal agencies to ensure that any action authorized, funded 
or authorized by the agency is not likely to jeopardize the continued 
existence of any endangered or threatened species. Details concerning 
the development and justification of this final rule were provided in 
the preamble to the proposed rule (78 FR 42654, July 16, 2013) and are 
not repeated here.
    As a result of public input provided through the scoping process 
and Team meetings, NMFS developed six alternatives including a ``No 
Action'' or status quo alternative, to modify the Plan. All six of 
these alternatives are described and analyzed in detail in the Final 
Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) prepared to accompany this rule. 
NMFS identified Alternative 5 as the Preferred Alternative in the 
proposed rule but after receiving public comment on each alternative 
NMFS has decided to amend the Plan as proposed in Alternative 6, with a 
few adjustments.
    The proposed rule's preferred Alternative 5 would have implemented 
three closure areas to reduce the risk of serious injury and mortality 
incidental to interaction between whales and commercial fishing gear, 
thereby enhancing the likelihood of meeting MMPA requirements of 
reducing serious injury and mortality to level approaching ZMRG. Two of 
the three proposed closure areas; however, were determined to have low 
levels of ``co-occurrence'' of whales and fishing gear, and therefore 
the conservation benefit of closing those two areas was deemed to be 
minimal, while the cost to the fishing industry would have been 
substantial. The single closure contained in this final rule was the 
only one of the proposed three closure areas in which there is a high 
level of co-occurrence of whales and fishing gear. Thus, closing this 
area will have a similar conservation benefit that closing all three of 
the areas in the proposed Preferred Alternative 5 would have had.
    The other adjustments to Alternative 6 which have been included in 
this final rule are described as follows:
    (1) New Hampshire state waters are exempted from the minimum number 
of traps per trawl requirement of the final rule, but fishermen are not 
exempted from other previously implemented requirements. This is a 
change from the proposed rule which would have exempted New Hampshire 
state waters from all requirements, and therefore increases the 
conservation benefit to whales from the measures in the proposed rule.
    (2) The minimum number of traps per trawl in the final rule for 
Massachusetts

[[Page 36587]]

and Rhode Island state waters and pocket waters in Maine is reduced 
from three to two traps per trawl. This change is due to concerns about 
the safety of small boats having to work trawls of three traps as 
opposed to trawls of two traps. This change is negligible, and thus is 
still consistent with the MMPA.
    (3) An exemption from the minimum number of traps per trawl 
requirement is newly created in this final rule for a \1/4\ mile buffer 
in waters surrounding three inhabited islands in Maine--Monhegan, 
Matinicus, and Ragged Islands. Boats within this \1/4\ mile buffer will 
be allowed to continue fishing single traps rather than multiple trap 
trawls in the proposed rule, due to safety issues since these waters 
are generally less than 30 fathoms deep with rocky edges, and boats 
fishing close to shore areas usually small. Whales are not likely to 
come this close to shore, so this change from the proposed rule does 
not lessen the conservation benefit of the final rule.
    (4) Gear marking is not required in Maine exempted waters, in 
contrast to the proposed rule, due to feasibility concerns of switching 
marks when moving from an exempt area to a non-exempt area. The change 
in conservation benefit to whales from this change is negligible.
    Because this final rule with a single closure and the other changes 
described above will provide a conservation benefit comparable to that 
which would have been provided by the preferred Alternative 5 in the 
proposed rule, yet pose less economic impact and fewer safety concerns 
to the fishing industry, it is consistent with the requirements of the 
MMPA to reduce serious injury and mortality to approach ZMRG. The 
changes in the final rule, as compared to the proposed rule, are 
justifiable under MMPA requirements and goals because they take into 
account the economics of the fishery, the availability of existing 
technology, and existing fishery management plans, as well as the goal 
of the ESA to avoid jeopardizing the continued existence of ESA-listed 
whales.
    As noted in the DATES section above, this rule is effective 60 days 
after publication with the exception of the amended gear marking 
requirements and gear modifications in the Southeast (effective 
November 1, 2014) and amended gear marking requirements and minimum 
number of traps per trawl requirement in the Northeast (effective June 
1, 2015). NMFS chose a phased-in implementation for this rule as a 
result of public comment. The changes in the Plan require the 
reconfiguration of approximately 200,000 vertical lines at an annual 
compliance cost of approximately $1.9 to $4.5 million. In the 
Southeast, Industry members and state partners requested that NMFS 
provide adequate time for industry to comply with the amended gear 
marking requirements, as 60 days would not be sufficient time for that 
purpose given the extent of needed changes in light of the new 
requirements. In the Northeast, Industry members and state partners 
requested that the implementation date coincide with the trap tag 
renewal date of June 1 to allow for a more cost-effective 
implementation of the new requirements, as gear is out of the water 
during that time as industry affix new trap tags for the upcoming 
season. The new minimum trap per trawl measure requires increasing the 
number of traps per vertical line which requires removal of equipment 
from the water and reconfiguration of line and equipment. Additional 
time is needed for fishermen to adapt to these changes. NMFS finds that 
there is good cause for the November 1, 2014 and June 1, 2015 phased-in 
implementation date to address the public's concerns, and given that 
the impact on conservation benefit to large whales from this phased-in 
implementation will be minimal given the relatively short delay in 
implementation. Specifically, the majority of the conservation measures 
included in the final rule will be in place 60 days after publication 
of the rule--including protective measures during calving season, and a 
closure that goes into effect January 1, 2015, and all current ALWTRP 
requirements, including the sinking groundline requirement, remain in 
place during this phased-in implementation of some of the new measures.

Changes to the Plan for Boundaries and Seasons

    This final rule will exempt New Hampshire State waters from the 
Plan's minimum number of traps per trawl requirement based on the co-
occurrence model. Those fishing in state waters would still be required 
to comply with previously implemented requirements including marking 
requirements (see 50 CFR 229.23(b)(2) and (3)).
    NMFS intends to expand the Cape Cod Bay Restricted Area to include 
portions of the Outer Cape. This new area, Massachusetts Restricted 
Area, would be closed for a portion of the year (January 1-April 30) to 
trap/pot fisheries, due to the level of co-occurrence of whales and 
gear and the conservation benefit to be gained while minimizing 
economic impacts to the fishery.
    Finally, NMFS intends to create a new trap/pot management area in 
the Southeast. The eastern boundary of the current Southern Nearshore 
Trap/Pot waters area would be aligned with the eastern boundary of the 
existing Southeast Restricted Area North management area. This new area 
would coincide with the current Southeast Restricted Area North 
management area in place for gillnets. Management measures in this area 
would be in place from November 15 through April 15.

Changes to the Plan for Trap/Pot Gear

    In the Northeast, NMFS will institute restrictions designed to 
reduce the number of buoy lines that fishermen employ. This final rule 
limits the number of lines in the Northeast by prohibiting single trap/
pots and requiring fishermen to increase the number of traps per trawl 
they set based on area and distance to shore. In some areas (mainly 
inshore and nearshore waters) this may represent a change from how they 
currently fish. In Federal waters and offshore, larger trawls are 
currently fished so this requirement may not affect these vessels to 
the same extent as smaller inshore vessels. The current requirement of 
one endline for trawls less than or equal to five traps remains in 
place. Larger trawls (i.e., > 5 traps/pots) will not be required to 
have only one endline.
    The numbers of traps per trawl are based on the co-occurrence 
model, public input, and discussions with state partners. The required 
traps per trawl differ based on distance to shore and lobster 
management area. In Maine the number of traps per trawl is defined 
based on Maine state lobster zones.
    In the Southeast Restricted Area North, NMFS will require single 
traps/pots, implement weaker weak links and breaking strength of 
vertical lines, and require all vertical lines to be free of objects 
(e.g., weights, floats, etc.) except where it attaches to the buoy and 
trap/pot, and made of sinking line.
    The Plan requires the use of weak links with maximum breaking 
strengths of 200 to 600 lbs (90.7 to 272 kg) depending on management 
area within the Southeast Restricted Area North. This final rule 
defines the breaking strengths of weak links in South Carolina, 
Georgia, Florida state waters as 600 lbs (272 kg), 600 lbs (272 kg), 
and 200 lbs (90.7 kg), respectively. In Federal waters the breaking 
strength is defined as 600 lbs (272 kg).
    This final rule also defines the maximum breaking strength of 
vertical line in the Southeast Restricted Area North. In South Carolina 
and Georgia state waters breaking strength of the

[[Page 36588]]

vertical line will not exceed 2,200 lbs (998 kg). In Florida state 
waters breaking strength of vertical line will not exceed 1,500 lbs 
(680 kg). Federal waters will have a breaking strength of 2,200 lbs 
(998 kg).
    In an effort to decrease the number of ways gear is rigged, NMFS is 
also requiring that vertical lines be made of sinking line and free of 
objects for those traps set anywhere in the Southeast Restricted Area 
North. (effective in the Southeast on November 1, 2014 and effective in 
the Northeast on June 1, 2015).

Changes to the Plan for Gear Marking

    This final rule will implement a gear marking scheme that maintains 
the current color combinations but increases the size and frequency of 
the mark. The new mark must equal 12-inches (30.5 cm) in length and 
buoy lines must be marked three times (top, middle, bottom). A mark for 
the new Southeast U.S. Restricted Area North would be required for both 
state and Federal waters. This rule will continue to allow multiple 
methods for marking line (e.g., paint, tape, rope, etc.). (effective in 
the Southeast on November 1, 2014 and effective in the Northeast on 
June 1, 2015).

Regulatory Language Changes

    Some corrections and clarifications have been identified as 
necessary since the last regulation was implemented. The following 
changes to the current Plan regulations will improve consistency and 
clarity.
    Exempted waters: NMFS added language to clarify the exempted waters 
description.
    Southeast U.S. Monitoring Area Clarification: The final rule 
clarifies the restricted period for the Southeast U.S. Monitoring Area. 
The added language defines the restricted period as December 1 through 
March 31.
    Definitions: The final rule modifies the definition of 
``groundline'' when referring to gillnets to remove reference to buoy 
line. The modified definition reads, ''Groundline with reference to 
trap/pot gear, means a line connecting traps in a trap trawl, and, with 
reference to gillnet gear, means a line connecting a gillnet or gillnet 
bridle to an anchor.''
    Prohibitions: The final rule eliminates the individual prohibition 
paragraphs on fishing or possessing trap/pot gear, anchored gillnet, 
drift gillnet, gillnet, and shark gillnets (Sec.  229.3(h) through (l)) 
and condenses the intended prohibitions into three paragraphs that 
apply to ``any person or vessel and fishing gear subject to the Plan.''
    NMFS clarifies that fishermen are responsible for proving that an 
exemption or exception under Sec.  229.32 is applicable.
    Other Special Measures: This final rule clarifies the intent of 
Sec.  229.32(i)(2) to include consultation with the Take Reduction 
Team.

Comments and Responses

    NMFS received 533 letters from commenters on the Draft 
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and proposed rule via 
www.regulations.gov, letter, fax, or email. Additionally, two form 
letters were received on the DEIS via hardcopy letter and email; 
approximately 27,500 of one form letter, 13,500 of another form letter, 
and approximately 1,300 slight variations to the form letters. NMFS 
also solicited comments on the DEIS during 16 public hearings held 
along the Atlantic coast. The substantive comments are summarized and 
grouped below by major subject headings. NMFS' response follows each 
comment. NMFS received comments on DEIS technical changes that were not 
substantive, and incorporated such changes in the FEIS as appropriate. 
These technical comments are not listed in the summary.

General Comments

    Comment 1: One commenter stated that the proposed measures should 
be extended to recreational fishermen and not just commercial 
fishermen.
    Response: The regulations implementing the Plan are governed by 
Section 118 of the MMPA, which requires take reduction teams to assist 
NMFS in the development of take reduction plans that address serious 
injuries and mortalities of marine mammals that interact with 
commercial fishing operations. Therefore, the proposed measures apply 
to commercial fishing only. However, recreational fishermen that take 
marine mammals are in violation of the MMPA prohibition against taking 
marine mammals. NMFS has created brochures designed to inform 
recreational fishermen about protected species conservation.
    Comment 2: Two commenters requested that the 60-day public comment 
period be extended.
    Response: NMFS believes that the 60-day comment period was adequate 
and chose not to extend the time period.
    Comment 3: One commenter stated that the proposed regulations 
should consider the shifting baseline in the marine food chain as a 
result of climate change and eutrophication, stating that right whale 
prey distribution is changing in time and place and management should 
be adapted to account for these shifts. The commenter suggested that 
the status quo approach be supplemented with dynamic solutions using an 
ecosystem approach for management.
    Response: NMFS acknowledges this important comment. Managing 
resources in the face of changing environmental conditions is 
challenging. The ability to account for distribution shifts that may 
result from changing environmental conditions exist in the current 
regulations. These regulations can be found at Sec.  229.32(i)(2). 
Among other considerations, should NMFS, in consultation with the Team, 
determine that right whale distribution shifts result in its current 
conservation measures being no longer appropriate, NMFS has the ability 
to make changes to the measures.
    Comment 4: A few commenters stated that they have never seen a 
whale in state waters and thus it was unfair to propose new laws in 
areas without whales.
    Response: Because most large whale entanglements (particularly 
those involving right whales) tend to be free swimming entanglements 
when detected and the gear recovered from these entanglements do not 
provide adequate information to determine where an entanglement 
occurred, entanglements from specific fisheries and areas are rarely 
documented. Therefore, NMFS developed a model to help identify the 
relative likelihood of an entanglement by time and area. The model is 
based on high ``co-occurrence areas,'' which are areas that have the 
highest frequency of gear that overlap with large whale sightings per 
unit effort. NMFS believes that these high co-occurrence areas 
represent a higher likelihood of entanglement to large whales. Areas 
identified as a high co-occurrence area may be subject to conservation 
measures regardless of whether a take has been documented in that area.
    Comment 5: Some commenters stated that the entanglement risk to 
right and other large whales is greater in areas outside of the 
Southeast U.S. Atlantic and that there have been no documented cases of 
black sea bass or blue crab gear on a right whale. Some commenters also 
noted that fewer trap/pots are set in the Southeast relative to 
northern regions (including Canada) and that gear in the Southeast is 
lighter, uses shorter vertical lines, and is therefore less risky to 
whales than trap/pot gear found farther north.
    Response: The annual Stock Assessment Reports (SARs) partition out

[[Page 36589]]

entanglement records between U.S. and Canadian waters for large 
cetacean species. Currently, in the 2012 SAR (Waring et al., 2013) the 
average number of annual fishery entanglements of right whales was 1.6 
in U.S. waters and 0.2 in Canadian waters. The potential biological 
removal for this species is calculated at 0.9. Thus, even when 
considering only entanglements from U.S. fisheries, right whales are 
being taken at too great a rate to maintain optimal population 
sustainability. Furthermore, gear removed from right whales is not 
always identified to a specific fishery; however, in cases where the 
gear could be identified, more rope was associated with trap/pot gear 
than gillnet gear (Johnson et al., 2005).
    The vertical line model utilized by NMFS and the Team for the 
development of this rule focused on areas of high co-occurrence of 
vertical lines associated with commercial trap/pot and gillnet gear and 
large whale sighting per unit effort data. The analysis of these data 
indicated that co-occurrence was relatively low within the Southeast 
Restricted Area North during the right whale season from November 15th 
through April 15th. Consequently, NMFS did not propose a closure 
throughout the Southeast Restricted Area North or critical habitat 
area. However, the gear is not risk-free, which is why NMFS is 
implementing other risk reduction measures through this final rule. 
Also, see response to Comment 40.
    Comment 6: One commenter stated that before taking further action 
NMFS should provide fishermen with statistical significance and a five 
year period by which to assess the major April 2009 implementation of 
the previous rule requiring fishermen to change their floating 
groundline to sinking groundline.
    Response: At its 2003 meeting, by consensus, the Team agreed to two 
overarching principles associated with reducing large whale 
entanglement risks: (1) Reducing entanglement risks associated with 
groundlines in commercial trap/pot gear; and (2) reducing entanglement 
risks associated with vertical lines. The Team agreed to focus first on 
addressing the groundline entanglement risk, which was completed in 
October 2007 (72 FR 57104, October 5, 2007), followed by the 
development and implementation of a vertical line rule. This rule 
addresses the entanglement risk identified by the Team to large whales 
from vertical lines, and completes the two-pronged strategy identified 
by the Team to address large whale entanglements in commercial trap/pot 
and gillnet gear. Under the MMPA, the number of deaths or serious 
injuries due to commercial fishing activities must not affect a 
species' ability to reach or maintain its optimum sustainable 
population. At present, with just the sinking groundline conservation 
measures in place, the number of serious injuries and mortalities for 
right whales and humpback whales remain above permissible levels and 
mortalities due to entanglements in vertical lines in trap/pot and 
gillnet gear continue to occur. NMFS, in consultation with the Team, 
has developed a monitoring strategy to evaluate industry compliance 
with the Plan and the effectiveness of the Plan in achieving the Plan's 
goals and objectives. For more information on the monitoring strategy, 
please see the response to Comment 8.
    Comment 7: A few commenters suggested that NMFS move forward with 
one measure to reduce interactions at a time in a phased approach. It 
was suggested that NMFS should just increase the number of traps per 
trawl before proposing closures or just move forward with the increased 
gear marking at this time and then once the problem areas are 
identified come back with management measures targeting those problem 
areas.
    Response: NMFS appreciates the suggestion but believes that the 
combination of management measures in the final rule is necessary to 
achieve the goals of the MMPA and ESA.
    Comment 8: A few commenters were concerned that there was a lack of 
strategy if entanglement levels continued to exceed Potential 
Biological Removal Rate (PBR) regardless of the proposed measures. The 
commenters stated that whales could continue to experience high levels 
of entanglement than legally allowed with no recourse.
    Response: On February 23-24, 2009, NMFS convened an internal 
workshop to discuss the development of a comprehensive monitoring 
strategy for the Plan. The goal of this workshop was to develop an 
outline for a monitoring strategy that included components to review 
compliance with and to assess the effectiveness of the Plan regulations 
in achieving the MMPA short-and long-term goals of reducing serious 
injury and mortality of large whales in U.S. commercial fisheries. This 
monitoring strategy was shared with the Team and went into effect in 
August 2012. This strategy includes both annual monitoring reports and 
a multi-year status summary intended to review the Plan's effectiveness 
and compliance over a 5-year timeframe. If analyses determine that the 
Plan is not achieving its goals, NMFS will review the multi-year status 
summary to evaluate the potential causes for not achieving the 
management objectives and consult with the Team on the development of 
appropriate actions to address any identified shortcomings in the Plan.
    Comment 9: One commenter requested that the preamble to the rule 
and FEIS include a discussion that more accurately reflects decisions 
reached by the Team with respect to the rulemaking timeline.
    Response: NMFS disagrees with the commenter's assessment that the 
discussion of the rulemaking timeline is not accurately reflected. NMFS 
believes that the proposed rule's preamble and DEIS reflect the Team 
discussions at past meetings about the need to move forward with a 
vertical line rule and the timeline to develop and implement the rule. 
The text in the preamble and DEIS is consistent with the Team's meeting 
summaries.
    Comment 10: Several commenters stated that there are too many 
unanswered questions that need to be answered before expanding new 
policies. They requested that the northeast portion of the rule be 
reconsidered until better information exists regarding what part of the 
line is entangling whales and what the economic impact of the changes 
will be on the industry.
    Response: The FEIS notes that entanglements of large whales are 
still occurring and highlights the provisions of the MMPA and ESA that 
NMFS is required to follow. Based on the continued serious injury and 
mortality of large whales, NMFS must take action to provide more 
protection to large whales. Although NMFS acknowledges the need for 
more scientific information, NMFS is required to take action based on 
the best information that is available when developing the EIS. The 
economic impact of this action is discussed in the EIS. As new 
information becomes available regarding large whales, entanglements, or 
economic impacts of these policies NMFS will share this information 
with the Team to determine if additional changes to the Plan are 
warranted.
    Comment 11: One commenter stated that there is a lack of data and 
the data that is available is often flawed.
    Response: See Response to Comment 10.
    Comment 12: A few commenters commented that NMFS fails to link the 
proposed measures to a reduction in serious injury/mortality. The 
commenters stated that, although a reduction in risk does not 
necessarily equate to the same level of reduction in serious injury/
mortality, it provides some basis for meeting the PBR goals.

[[Page 36590]]

The commenters believe the rule should meet a 50% reduction standard or 
provide explanation for how the rule will reduce the levels of serious 
injury/mortality to below PBR.
    Response: Sufficient information is not available on when, where, 
and how entanglements occur such that a specific vertical line 
reduction target can be calculated. Therefore, NMFS and the Team have 
not determined a percent reduction of vertical lines that would reduce 
serious injury and mortality of large whales that encounter vertical 
lines to a level that would achieve the MMPA's PBR and ZMRG mandates. 
NMFS used the best information that is available and worked with 
commercial trap/pot and gillnet fishermen and other stakeholders to 
develop feasible conservation measures intended to achieve the goals 
and objectives of the Plan and MMPA. The preferred alternative achieves 
a 38% reduction in co-occurrence coastwide. NMFS believes this level of 
co-occurrence reduction is consistent with and furthers the goals and 
objectives of the MMPA and ESA.
    Comment 13: In response to NMFS' request to comment on the proposed 
changes to the `other special measures' provision, one commenter agreed 
that the Team should be consulted but that the consultation must 
involve dialogue. The commenter questioned if the provision agreed with 
the MMPA since the MMPA specifically provides NMFS with authority to 
take emergency actions to promote conservation.
    Response: NMFS appreciates the support for the change to the 
provision. The provision and the MMPA emergency regulations are 
different and have their own requirements. The ``Other Special 
Measures'' provision is not intended to address NMFS' ability to take 
emergency actions, rather it allows NMFS to make changes to the Plan as 
new information about gear marking, gear technology, or right whale 
distribution in closed areas becomes available. This final rule 
includes language to ensure that the Team is consulted prior to actions 
being taken under the ``Other Special Measures'' provision.

General Comments on Proposed Alternatives

    Comment 14: Many people stated their general support for the 
Preferred Alternative stating that the level of serious injury and 
mortality is above PBR and therefore additional management measures are 
necessary.
    Response: NMFS acknowledges this comment and agrees that additional 
management measures are necessary.
    Comment 15: Numerous people stated their support for the No Action 
Alternative referring to the increasing right whale population as a 
sign that the current management measures are working and additional 
measures are not necessary.
    Response: NEPA requires NMFS to analyze a no action alternative. 
NMFS did not choose this alternative for this final rule because it is 
not consistent with the goals and objectives of the Plan and therefore 
is not consistent with the goals and requirements of the MMPA or ESA. 
Although the right whale population has increased in recent years, the 
number of serious injury and mortalities occurring as a result of 
entanglement in commercial fishing gear is still at a level above PBR 
and ZMRG. NMFS has determined that additional measures included in this 
action are necessary to help meet the objectives of the MMPA and ESA.
    Comment 16: One commenter stated that the proposed alternatives 
would require fishermen to spend more money on weak links and sinking 
rope and fishermen can't afford to spend more money.
    Response: NMFS is sensitive to the costs of complying with this 
final rule and characterized the economic and social impacts in the 
FEIS. Chapter 7 of the FEIS identifies the vessels segments that may be 
heavily affected by the new requirements. Based on the comments 
received during the public comment period and public hearings, the 
preferred alternative was chosen because it provided a significant 
conservation benefit to large whales while having a lower economic cost 
to industry.
    Comment 17: One commenter agreed that reducing vertical line 
offshore is a good thing to do as there are more whales offshore so the 
rules should be made to account for this.
    Response: NMFS agrees with this comment and the final rule includes 
measures for vessels fishing offshore.
    Comment 18: A handful of commenters provided general comments about 
the Southeast U.S. portion of the proposed rule: (1) The proposed rule 
contained a patchwork of requirements within the currently designated 
critical habitat that are inconsistent and arbitrary, (2) the various 
requirements would make it difficult for fishermen to comply and law 
enforcement officials to enforce, and (3) the presence of neophyte 
calves in Florida state waters was NMFS' basis for requiring weak links 
and ropes with lower breaking strengths in that area, but these same 
``neophytes'' are born further to the north where breaking strengths 
are far higher (and presumably create higher risk). Many of these 
commenters were also concerned that proposed measures in the Southeast 
largely retain the status quo and do not reduce risk to right whales, 
especially for mother/calf pairs.
    Response: This final rule provides additional protection to right 
whales by focusing management measures in areas of elevated co-
occurrence of whales and vertical lines. First, NMFS believes the 
various requirements provide protection for right whales while avoiding 
unnecessary impact to fisheries. Second, NMFS did not receive any 
comments about difficulties associated with compliance or enforcement 
from fishermen or law enforcement officials. Third, NMFS is 
particularly cognizant of the weaker physical characteristics of 
neophyte calves, which most often occur in the Southeast U.S. Neophyte 
calves are occasionally documented off North Carolina and Cape Cod Bay, 
Massachusetts; however, the highest co-occurrence of very young right 
whale calves and vertical lines is in Florida state waters and where 
the trap/pot gear modifications in this rule are the most risk averse.
    Finally, NMFS agrees that some of the Southeast measures in this 
final rule retain the status quo regarding existing fishing gear and 
techniques. In those instances, NMFS believes the present gear/practice 
is appropriately risk averse and codified those practices to ensure the 
gear does not become riskier to whales in the future. However, other 
measures such as requiring object-free lines, sinking vertical lines, 
returning gear to port from federal waters, and additional gear marking 
are all new measures that reduce entanglement risks to right whales, 
including mother/calf pairs.
    Comment 19: One commenter supported customizing management measures 
to specific high priority areas rather than using wide-scale broad 
management; this commenter thought that applying the same management 
measures to the area from North Carolina all the way down to Florida to 
the 29 latitude line isn't a customized plan. Another commenter stated 
that the Southeast Restricted Area North (SERA N) is a huge area and 
that he fishes in only a small portion of that area and requested a 
``secondary boundary'' that would allow him to fish for blue crab in 
Federal waters.
    Response: NMFS is defining the Southeast Restricted Area North as a 
trap/pot management areas so that the southeast U.S. measures in this 
final rule apply to the same management area used for gillnet 
fisheries. This helps reduce and streamline the number of

[[Page 36591]]

management areas while providing protection for right whales. However, 
new information on right whale distribution has become available since 
the Southeast Restricted Area North gillnet area was established. This 
new data is currently being evaluated. If NMFS determines that the 
Southeast Restricted Area North and South boundaries should be 
adjusted, we will do so in consultation with the Team as part of future 
rulemaking.
    Comment 20: Some commenters suggested that all states should have 
the same protections coastwide paying special attention to areas and 
seasons where right whales feed and give birth.
    Response: NMFS, in consultation with the Team, chose not to 
implement a broad-based management scheme as it had done in the past. 
Instead, NMFS and the Team developed a model to compare the relative 
likelihood of entanglements occurring across areas and seasons. The 
model is based on high ``co-occurrence areas,'' which are areas that 
have the highest frequency of gear that overlap with large whale 
sightings. NMFS utilized these high co-occurrence areas as a proxy for 
high risk of entanglement to large whales. The management measures are 
intended to provide the same protection to areas of high co-occurrence 
regardless of whether the measures differ from state to state. There 
are regional differences in fishing practices that influence fishing 
techniques, and NMFS tried to account for the differences in techniques 
when developing the rule.
    Comment 21: Two commenters stated they did not support making 
splicing line illegal. It would be impossible to make buoy lines 
without splices.
    Response: NMFS agrees and did not intend to suggest that splicing 
line would be illegal. This is clarified in this final rule.
    Comment 22: One commenter agreed that there is insufficient data in 
the mid-Atlantic to propose management measures at this time. The 
commenter supports efforts to assess whale distribution in this area 
and if high co-occurrence areas are identified later on then fisheries 
should be managed.
    Response: The Plan was developed to reduce the level of serious 
injury and mortality of North Atlantic right, humpback, and fin whales. 
NMFS, in consultation with the Team, chose to develop management 
measures in areas of high co-occurrence of gear and large whale 
sightings. NMFS used these high co-occurrence areas as a proxy of 
entanglement risk to large whales. There are fewer large whale sighting 
data in the mid-Atlantic than in other regions. Because of this, the 
mid-Atlantic did not register as an area of high co-occurrence between 
whales and fishing gear. NMFS would welcome new information, including 
sightings and effort data, on large whales in this area. In fact, NMFS 
and the Team have identified Mid-Atlantic surveys as a priority should 
additional funding become available for monitoring and/or modeling 
efforts in the Mid-Atlantic. If so, NMFS will work with its research 
partners to develop an adequate monitoring plan and/or model for the 
Mid-Atlantic area.
    Comment 23: One commenter requested that NMFS add another 
alternative that assesses the impacts of the closures without the 
proposed increase in number of traps per trawl.
    Response: During the development of the alternatives, NMFS and the 
Team did consider utilizing only closures. However, preliminary 
analysis indicated that the closure-only strategy would not afford 
enough protection to large whales to satisfy the requirements of the 
MMPA and ESA. Further, NMFS believes that the number of alternatives 
analyzed in the EIS was adequate. The alternatives analyzed were a 
combination of stakeholder proposals developed by the Team during the 
course of several meetings and the result of input received during the 
15 public scoping meetings.
    Comment 24: One commenter stated that fishing effort in the Gulf of 
Maine lobster fishery may have exceeded capacity and the fishing effort 
could be reduced without significantly impacting lobster catch. 
Reducing effort would reduce entanglement risk but the proposed rule 
sidesteps the issue of effort reduction and it is unclear how effective 
the rule would be at reducing entanglements.
    Response: NMFS acknowledges that effort reduction through limits on 
the number of trap/pot gear utilized by fishermen has taken place. 
However a reduction in traps does not necessarily equate to a reduction 
in the number of vertical lines in the water column. During the comment 
period NMFS requested comments on how best to quantify potential future 
trap reductions or increases with respect to how many vertical lines 
could be reduced or increased. NMFS did not receive any substantive 
comments addressing this issue.
    Comment 25: A few commenters felt that the proposed rule did not 
address latent effort and the potential for more gear to be in the 
water in the future.
    Response: NMFS realizes that potential effort reductions or 
increases in future fishing effort could reduce or increase the number 
of vertical lines in the water column. During the comment period NMFS 
requested suggestions for how best to quantify potential future trap 
reductions or increases with respect to how many vertical lines could 
be reduced or increased. NMFS did not receive any responsive comments. 
NMFS intends to monitor this issue as part of the Plan's monitoring 
strategy (see response to Comment 8).
    Comment 26: NMFS received many comments on the proposal to require 
trap/pot gear fished in Southeast Restricted Area North (SERA N) 
Federal waters be brought back to port at the end of a fishing trip. 
South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR) and several 
individuals from Georgia and South Carolina commented that a small 
number of blue crab fishermen with larger boats may set traps in both 
state and federal waters (up to 12 miles (19.3 km) offshore) in years 
when coastal water temperatures may be cooler than normal and crabs 
move farther out of the estuaries and into the ocean. This seasonal 
fishing activity is extremely important economically to the relatively 
few fishermen who can participate in this aspect of the fishery, 
particularly since winter is the high-dollar season for blue crab. 
These commenters stated that the requirement to return all traps to 
shore at the end of the day would, at minimum, greatly hamper the 
efficiency and cost effectiveness of fishermen, but more likely would 
create a closure of the blue crab fishery in Federal waters and cause 
an economic hardship on fishermen. One commenter supported the 
requirement to return gear to port at the conclusion of each fishing 
trip because it represented a de facto seasonal closure in Federal 
waters for trap/pot fisheries that required long soak times and would 
prevent trap/pot effort from encroaching into Federal waters where 
whale density is high. One commenter thought there were multiple ways 
to interpret the meaning of ``the conclusion of each fishing trip'' and 
was curious about how enforcement officials would interpret the phrase.
    Response: NMFS is concerned about the risk to right whales from 
trap/pot gear in SERA N Federal waters because fishermen use longer 
vertical lines with a higher breaking strength. These factors increase 
the risk from entanglement to right whales because longer lines mean 
more line that whales may encounter and higher breaking strength means 
a whale, particularly a calf, is less likely to break free of gear once 
it becomes entangled. Additionally, all other things being equal, long-
soak gear represents a greater opportunity for entanglement than short-
soak gear. Right whales, including calves, occur in Federal

[[Page 36592]]

waters off the coasts of South Carolina and Georgia from November 
through April. The measures in this rule reduce risk to right whales 
from entanglement in Federal waters by specifying a 2,200 lb (998 kg) 
maximum breaking strength of vertical lines and reducing the exposure 
of gear to right whales by requiring gear be returned to port at the 
end of a fishing trip.
    Based on fishermen's comments, we recognize that this measure will 
likely eliminate blue crab fishing effort in Federal waters in the 
winter because deploying trap/pots for only a short period of time 
(period of hours) is not effective at catching blue crabs. However, 
according to comments, the majority of blue crab fishermen do not fish 
in Federal waters. Consequently, this requirement will likely impact 
only a small proportion of fishermen and only during cold winters when 
blue crabs are reportedly found farther offshore. NMFS believes that 
the majority of fishermen in the blue crab fishery will be largely 
unaffected by this final rule because they will still be able to fish 
in state waters where the majority of blue crabs are harvested. In 
developing these regulations, NMFS considered right whale distribution, 
entanglement risk factors, and blue crab fishery characteristics.
    A fishing trip is defined in 50 CFR 229.2 as a period that a 
fishing vessel spends at sea between port visits and during which any 
fishing occurs.
    Comment 27: NMFS received one comment on the object-free line 
proposed for trap/pot gear fished in the Southeast Restricted Area 
North. The commenter stated that many Florida blue crab fishermen use a 
second, trailing buoy and wondered if weak links would need to be 
attached to each buoy.
    Response: During the public hearings, a few Florida blue crab 
fishermen reported they attach a trailing buoy by 1-3 ft (0.3-0.91 m) 
of line to the surface buoy of blue crab trap/pot. They stated that the 
surface and trailing buoy combination is used to assess ocean currents 
and the direction from which they should approach and retrieve their 
gear. NMFS believes that knot-free and object-free lines have a higher 
probability of sliding through whale baleen than lines with bumps, 
bulges, or attached buoys, weights, bottles, etc. that are larger than 
the line's diameter (splices are allowed, but not preferred). NMFS 
believes that the use of a trailing buoy and weak link as described 
during the public hearing process would defeat the purpose of the 
object-free line. However, NMFS did not notify and request comments on 
prohibiting trailing buoys or using weak links with trailing buoys. 
Therefore, NMFS will consult with the Team and evaluate whether to ban 
the use of a trailing buoy and weak link in a future rulemaking.
    Comment 28: One commenter commented that the lack of risk reduction 
proposed in the mid-Atlantic was unacceptable. The commenter stated 
that this is an area of high seasonal use for humpbacks and subject to 
sparse survey effort. The commenter also suggested that recent 
increases in dogfish and black sea bass quotas are likely to increase 
effort beyond what was considered in the model and likely result in 
increased risk.
    Response: See response to Comment 22.
    Comment 29: One commenter commented that the proposed measures only 
incidentally protect humpback whales in the Gulf of Maine and do 
nothing to protect them in the mid-Atlantic. The commenter stated that 
the closures are in areas where humpbacks are known to occur but not 
during times when they're the most abundant.
    Response: The closures were developed by stakeholders in areas of 
high right whale abundance. The final rule will implement one closure 
in an area including portions of Massachusetts Bay, Cape Cod Bay, and 
the Outer Cape. Humpback whales are known to frequent these areas and, 
therefore, will benefit from the closure. As mentioned above in 
response to Comment 22, NMFS chose to develop management measures in 
areas of high co-occurrence. High co-occurrence areas are areas that 
have the highest frequency of gear that overlap with right and humpback 
whale sightings. NMFS believes that these high co-occurrence areas pose 
the highest relative risk of entanglement to right and humpback whales. 
Due to lower sightings data, the mid-Atlantic did not register as an 
area of high co-occurrence between whales and fishing gear. NMFS would 
welcome new information, including sightings and effort data, on large 
whales in this area. NMFS will monitor fishing effort and whale 
distribution data in the mid-Atlantic to see if future management 
measures are needed. NMFS intends to monitor this issue as part of the 
Plan's monitoring strategy (see response to Comment 8).

Comments on Exemption Lines/Areas

    Comment 30: Several commenters supported the proposed exemption to 
New Hampshire state waters.
    Response: NMFS acknowledges this comment. The final rule will 
exempt New Hampshire state waters from portions of the Plan.
    Comment 31: Several commenters disagreed with the proposal to 
exempt New Hampshire state waters and continuing to exempt portions of 
Maine state waters from the Plan.
    Response: The New Hampshire exemption and buffers around certain 
Maine islands implemented under this rule only apply to the requirement 
to increase the number of traps per trawl for commercial trap/pot gear. 
All other requirements of the Plan, including the sinking groundline 
and weak link requirements are still required. NMFS believes the risk 
of entanglement in the New Hampshire exempted area and Maine island 
buffers are minimal. However, NMFS will continue to monitor exempted 
areas, and encourage states to develop contingency plans for large 
whales in these areas in the event that entanglements are identified to 
gear from exempted areas.
    Comment 32: One commenter stated that Buzzards Bay and Vineyard 
Sound should be exempt from regulations since Narragansett Bay in RI, 
inshore ME, and now possible state waters in New Hampshire would be 
exempt.
    Response: The exemption areas have been developed in response to 
requests from state fishery management agencies and are designed to 
ensure that regulations do not extend into areas where whale sightings 
or the potential for co-occurrence is low. Should a state wish to 
exempt portions of its waters from the Plan, NMFS has established a 
process for requesting exemptions from requirements under the Plan (see 
the Plan's Web site for more information).
    Comment 33: Several commenters supported the exemption to New 
Hampshire state waters from the increase in number of traps per trawl 
but not from all aspects of the Plan.
    Response: NMFS agrees with this comment (see response to Comment 
31).
    Comment 34: One commenter stated that the exemptions could increase 
the risk to leatherback turtles as a large number of boats fish in 
exempt waters and exempt areas put leatherbacks at risk.
    Response: The risk to leatherbacks as a result of the proposed New 
Hampshire state waters exemption was considered in the FEIS (Chapter 
5). NMFS is not relaxing the current restrictions in the exempted 
waters, thus, does not expect an increased risk to leatherbacks 
relative to the status quo. Leatherbacks are found within New Hampshire 
state waters but not in the abundance that they are found in other 
waters.
    Comment 35: One commenter did not support exemptions of small 
vessels from the trawling up requirement. The commenter stated that 
small vessels

[[Page 36593]]

operate close to shore and that these proposed requirements are already 
proposed to be shorter lengths. If shorter trawls or singles were 
allowed then the projections of risk reduction would change and haven't 
been analyzed in the DEIS.
    Response: The final rule does not include a small vessel exemption. 
NMFS is allowing a minimum of two traps per trawl in some state waters 
as opposed to the three traps per trawl originally proposed. Also, 
there will be a 1/4 mile buffer around three inhabited Maine islands 
that will allow fishermen fishing in those waters to continue to fish 
singles. These changes and subsequent changes to projections of risk 
reductions were analyzed in the FEIS. The changes result in only a 
small adjustment to the level of risk reduction. NMFS believes these 
changes address the safety concerns for small vessel operators, which 
were raised by fishermen during the public comment period and public 
hearings while still reducing the risk of entanglement.

Comments on Closed Areas

    Comment 36: Many commenters support the proposed closures, stating 
that the closures were aimed at reducing fishing effort in key areas 
with high concentrations of right whales.
    Response: NMFS acknowledges this comment. However, the final rule 
will incorporate only one such closure, the Massachusetts Bay 
Restricted Area. This closure was chosen by NMFS based on the 
importance of the area to right whales and the presence of large whales 
within the area during proposed closure period, and the determination, 
consistent with MMPA requirements, that this one closure furthers the 
MMPA's intent to reduce serious injury and mortality to levels below 
PBR and approaching ZMRG, taking into account the economics of the 
fishery, the availability of existing technology, and existing fishery 
management plans. See response to comment 38.
    Comment 37: Several commenters took issue with the start date of 
the proposed closure of January 1 for the Cape Cod Bay and 
Massachusetts Restricted Area. By starting the closure January 1 the 
commenters felt they would miss fishing opportunities during the months 
of November and December in that area. They stated that November and 
December are especially productive and profitable months for them.
    Response: The proposed closure start date is the same start date as 
the current closure for the gillnet fisheries in that area. The closure 
period reflects the time period when whales are most abundant in this 
area. The social impact analysis included in the FEIS examines the 
economic burden posed by the closure and the likely effect on the 
economic viability of fishing operations. The analysis identifies 
vessel segments that may be heavily impacted by the requirements and 
suggests that, under the preferred alternative, a limited number of 
small vessels are most at risk when comparing annual compliance costs 
to average per-vessel revenues. As a result, harvest levels are 
unlikely to change and related industries (e.g., seafood processing) 
are not likely to be affected. NMFS believes the expected conservation 
gain of the closures will provide the best chance for the Plan to 
achieve its goals and objectives, as well as those of the MMPA and ESA.
    Comment 38: Many commenters opposed the closures and questioned the 
conservation value of the closed areas. In some of the proposed areas, 
fishing effort is low so the chance of an entanglement is already low.
    Response: Based on public comments received, in this final rule, 
NMFS is implementing one closure instead of the three originally 
proposed. NMFS evaluated the conservation value and took into 
consideration economic impacts of such measures on industry. NMFS 
identified one closure area that is substantial in size and achieves a 
similar conservation value but is less economically burdensome on 
industry, consistent with Section 118 of the MMPA. The Massachusetts 
Restricted Area contains habitat that is very important and heavily 
utilized by right whales and is currently closed to gillnet fishing. 
The closure in this area would be extended to trap/pot fisheries under 
the final rule in an effort to lower the risk of entanglement in a high 
co-occurrence area.
    Comment 39: Numerous commenters stated that a closed area would 
displace fishermen to already crowded areas or create a wall of gear 
just outside the closure.
    Response: NMFS analyzed the alternatives in two ways to account for 
varying fishing effort depending upon the behavior of industry as a 
result of the proposed closures. One way assumed 100% suspension of 
fishing as a result of the closures and the other way assumed some 
vessels would relocate to fish outside the closed areas. The potential 
range of the reduction in co-occurrence of the Preferred Alternative is 
37.4-37.9%. NMFS believes that this closure will result in a reduction 
in co-occurrence that will further the likelihood of meeting the 
requirements and goals of the MMPA and ESA.
    Comment 40: Multiple commenters recommended that NMFS close the 
Southeast U.S. right whale critical habitat to trap/pot fishing since 
the agency proposed closing Cape Cod Bay to trap/pot fishing in January 
and February and the two areas exhibited similar co-occurrence scores 
of whales and fishing gear during this time of year (as presented in 
Appendix 5-A of the DEIS). These commenters further stated that closing 
critical habitat in the Northeast but not in the Southeast was an 
inconsistent strategy given young small calves are at a greater risk 
for entanglement in the Southeast critical habitat. Some strongly 
recommended that NMFS adopt the black sea bass seasonal closure 
currently required under South Atlantic Snapper-Grouper Fishery 
Management Plan as part of this final rule throughout the Southeast 
U.S. Restricted Area, an area that is already closed to gillnet 
fishing.
    Response: NMFS did not propose a trap/pot closure in the southeast 
U.S. critical habitat or Southeast Restricted Area North under this 
rulemaking because these areas did not exhibit extensive trap/pot 
fishing effort within either of these areas when compared to the volume 
of effort in Cape Cod Bay. In addition, the characteristics of blue 
crab trap/pot gear and lobster gear used in Cape Cod Bay are very 
different and therefore require different strategies to reduce risk to 
right whales. NMFS believes blue crabs can be harvested safely within 
state waters for reasons stated in the proposed rule, FEIS, and in this 
final rule under comments and responses on weak links, rope breaking 
strength, and trap removal. NMFS is not adopting the current black sea 
bass seasonal closure required under the Snapper-Grouper Fishery 
Management Plan in this final rule. NMFS published the ALWTRP proposed 
rule to mitigate the threat of vertical lines in commercial fisheries 
on July 16, 2013 (78 FR 42654). In a separate, unrelated rulemaking 
action, NMFS published a South Atlantic Fishery Management Council 
(SAFMC) Snapper-Grouper Fishery Management Plan-related proposed rule 
on July 2, 2013 (78 FR 39700), which, among other things, proposed a 
closure of the commercial black sea bass fishery in the South Atlantic 
from approximately Cape Hatteras, North Carolina to Cape Canaveral, 
Florida from November 1 through April 30. That closure became effective 
when the final rule was published on September 23, 2013 (78 FR 58249).
    During team discussions, data analyses, and the initial ALWTRP 
rulemaking process beginning in 2009, the Team and NMFS were unaware 
that

[[Page 36594]]

there would be an increase in the black sea bass quota (specifically, 
during the right whale winter migration) and associated closure as a 
result of this quota increase. Thus, this scenario was not discussed or 
included in the proposed rule. NMFS cannot implement a similar closure 
in this rulemaking because NMFS did not seek comment on mirroring the 
SAFMC Snapper-Grouper Fishery Management Plan black sea bass closure to 
protect right whales. NMFS will consider this issue as it further 
develops the Snapper-Grouper Fishery Management action and discuss this 
with the Team should a future rulemaking become necessary.
    Comment 41: Multiple commenters noted that the closure boundaries 
in the Northeast could be incorrect because of changing environmental 
conditions. The commenters believe that if the boundaries are wrong 
there is little chance to change them in a timely manner due to the 
lengthy process that is required to amend the Plan. They also did not 
support static closures as a means to protect whales.
    Response: NMFS acknowledges this comment. Managing resources in 
changing environmental conditions is challenging. NMFS believes that 
there is enough evidence suggesting whales inhabit the proposed 
Massachusetts Restricted Area to support closing this area. This area 
has long been known to be an important feeding ground for large whales. 
In fact, according to a recent report by Massachusetts Division of 
Marine Fisheries (2011) there has been an increase in presence of 
whales, particularly right whales, in this area in the months of 
January through April. Including the Outer Cape as part of this closure 
area creates a protection corridor for the whales to travel through on 
their way to their Cape Cod Bay feeding ground. Recent passive acoustic 
studies analyzing right whale calls detected in Massachusetts Bay 
indicate a persistent presence of right whales and call activity 
throughout much of the year (Morano et al., 2012; Mussoline et al., 
2012). NMFS will continue to survey the area for whale abundance and 
will work with the Team to modify the Plan if future surveys indicate 
that this area is no longer an important one for large whales. In 
addition, the ability to account for distribution shifts exists in the 
current regulations (see response to Comments 3 and 13). If it is found 
that right whales remain in a closed area longer than expected or leave 
earlier, or if the boundaries of a closed area are no longer 
appropriate NMFS, in consultation with the Team, may make changes to 
the requirements pursuant to the ``Other Special Measures'' provisions 
in the Plan.
    Comment 42: Multiple commenters noted that the boundaries of some 
of the closures (Jeffreys Ledge and Jordan Basin) appear to be based on 
right whale distribution and not co-occurrence as decided by the Team. 
They mentioned that the closures were not fully vetted through the Team 
and adding them after the fact is not transparent to the Team process.
    Response: NMFS agrees that the boundaries for all of the proposed 
closed areas were based in part on the distribution of right whales. 
Although the Team did agree to focus its conservation efforts on high 
co-occurrence areas, some Team members expressed concern that by 
relying solely on co-occurrence, some of the known right whale high use 
areas would not be adequately protected. In response, several closure 
proposals were developed by Team members. The closure proposals were 
initially discussed at the January 2012 Team meeting followed by 
additional discussion at the February and April 2012 meetings. 
Therefore, NMFS disagrees with the comment that the closures were not 
vetted through the Team. Based on public comments, the final rule does 
not include the Jeffreys Ledge or Jordan Basin closure (see the 
``Changes from the Proposed Rule'' section of the preamble).
    Comment 43: One commenter stated that the proposal to close the 
northern portion of Cape Cod Bay was not warranted. There is not a lot 
of fishing effort in the area and to those that fish there that area 
encompasses almost all of their winter fishing area.
    Response: See responses to Comments 37, 38, and 42.
    Comment 44: One commenter commended NMFS for proposing the closures 
but stressed the importance of reporting requirements to assess the 
closures effectiveness. Closures could trigger a relocation of effort 
so NMFS should be ready to expand the boundaries of the closures if 
this relocation leads to new areas of high co-occurrence.
    Response: NMFS intends to continue to monitor fishing vessel trip 
report and observer data, and work with states to improve reporting 
requirements to accurately capture fishing effort and changes in 
fishing effort as a result of the final rule requirements. Should 
relocation of effort occur that would result in new areas of high co-
occurrence NMFS would work with the Team to adjust the Plan as needed.
    Comment 45: One commenter suggested that NMFS consider replacing 
the proposed Jeffreys Ledge and Jordan Basin closures with an increase 
to the minimum number of traps per trawl from November 1 through 
February in Maine Zones F&G (6-12 mile) to 15 traps per trawl and in 
Maine Zone F&G (12+ mile) to 20 traps per trawl.
    Response: The final rule does not include the Jeffreys Ledge and 
Jordan Basin closures (see the ``Changes from the Proposed Rule'' 
section of the preamble). The rule will implement the minimum number of 
traps per trawl in Maine as requested by Maine Department of Marine 
Resources. This includes the above suggested seasonal increase to a 20 
trap per trawl minimum in Maine Zones F&G.
    Comment 46: Many commented that the proposed area for closure in 
Nantucket Sound was not justified by the co-occurrence model.
    Response: See response to Comment 42. NMFS has modified the final 
rule based on public comment and chosen to implement a seasonal closure 
in Massachusetts that does not include portions of Nantucket Sound. The 
final rule reduces risk to large whales and is consistent with the 
requirements of Section 118 of the MMPA.
    Comment 47: One commenter suggested that the closures may provide 
some level of reduction but these closures may not achieve the 
reduction needed to reach PBR. The closures are a minor step in 
addressing the issue. The commenter further requested that NMFS use an 
appropriate and peer-reviewed population model to quantify the impact 
of closures on whale populations.
    Response: NMFS and the Team cannot determine the exact percentage 
reduction of vertical lines needed to reduce serious injury and 
mortality of large whales that encounter vertical lines to PBR levels. 
Sufficient information is not available on when, where, and how 
entanglements occur such that a quantifiable line reduction target can 
be calculated. NMFS believes that the closure, accompanied by the 
minimum number of traps per trawl requirement coupled with the current 
regulations already required under the Plan, will achieve the goals and 
objectives of the MMPA and ESA. As part of its monitoring plan, NMFS 
will monitor the impacts of all the requirements in the rule on whale 
populations (see response to Comment 8).
    Comment 48: One commenter suggested that the time period for the 
Jeffreys Ledge closure should include September.
    Response: The final rule does not include the Jeffreys Ledge 
closure (see

[[Page 36595]]

the ``Changes from the Proposed Rule'' section of the preamble).
    Comment 49: One commenter supported the use of closed areas to 
manage entanglement risks to right whales in locations where right 
whale abundance is predictable and impacts to industry are minimal. The 
commenter supported closing Massachusetts State waters in the Cape Cod 
Bay Critical Habitat and suggested that this closure be state managed. 
The commenter believes that a closure in Cape Cod Bay should be dynamic 
to allow the state to alter the closure based on the large whale 
surveillance program conducted in that area.
    Response: See response to Comment 42. NMFS appreciates the support 
for a closed area in Cape Cod Bay. NMFS believes that the most 
effective closure to reduce the risk of serious injury and mortality 
would include Federal waters as well as state waters. NMFS intends to 
monitor this issue as part of the Plan's monitoring strategy (see 
response to Comment 8).
    Comment 50: Some commenters stated that the economic costs of the 
closures to the industry are too great and outweigh the conservation 
benefits to whales gained by the closures. They stated that the 
reduction in co-occurrence as a result of the closures will be minimal 
compared to the cost to industry. The cost per unit of co-occurrence 
reduction is spread across fewer vessels impacted by closures.
    Response: NMFS partially agrees with the commenter and has modified 
the final rule based on public comment to include one closure instead 
of the proposed three (see the ``Changes from the Proposed Rule'' 
section of the preamble). NMFS is sensitive to the cost of complying 
with the final rule and has analyzed these costs in Chapter 7 of the 
FEIS. NMFS believes that there is enough evidence indicating whales 
inhabit the proposed Massachusetts Restricted Area to support closing 
this area (see responses to Comments 37, 38, and 42). The Massachusetts 
Restricted Area has long been known to be an important feeding ground 
for large whales and there is a reduction in co-occurrence that will 
translate into a conservation benefit, thus helping achieve the 
requirements of the MMPA.
    Comment 51: Multiple commenters stated that if the Jordan Basin 
closure is finalized then the boundary of the closure area should be 
modified to only include waters in LMA 1 and not have the boundary 
cross the LMA 3 line as currently proposed.
    Response: The final rule does not include the Jordan Basin closure. 
Please see the ``Changes from the Proposed Rule'' section of the 
preamble and the response to Comments 37, 38 and 42.
    Comment 52: One commenter stated that closures are essential to 
reducing serious injury/mortality of large whales. The commenter 
believes that closures are the best means to reduce risk as each 
proposed closure has a high co-occurrence score during the proposed 
season.
    Response: NMFS believes that closures can serve as an important 
conservation tool if utilized appropriately. However, based on public 
comment and the analysis of its alternatives found in the FEIS, NMFS 
does not believe all three proposed closures are based on high co-
occurrence scores during the proposed seasons as the commenter 
suggests. Therefore, based on public comment, the final rule does not 
include the Jeffreys Ledge or Jordan Basin closure (see the ``Changes 
from the Proposed Rule'' section of the preamble and response to 
Comment 42). The single closure is consistent with the MMPA's 
provisions to reduce risk of serious injury and mortality while also 
taking into account the economics of the fishery, the availability of 
existing technology, and existing fishery management plans.
    Comment 53: Some commenters were concerned about the failure to 
more fully address vertical line risk in the Southeast in light of the 
likely increased effort in the black sea bass trap/pot fishery during 
the winter as a result of the SAFMC's recent actions related to the 
Snapper-Grouper Fishery Management Plan. Commenters noted that this 
potential increase in fishing effort was not considered in the DEIS.
    Response: SAFMC is developing Snapper Grouper Regulatory Amendment 
16, to modify or remove the recently implemented black sea bass fishery 
closure intended to protect right whales from entanglement in vertical 
lines associated with the black sea bass fishery. This regulatory 
amendment has the potential to contradict or remain consistent with the 
intent of this final rule (intended to reduce the threat of 
entanglement to right and other large whales from vertical lines 
associated with commercial fisheries). NMFS holds a seat on the SAFMC 
and continues to collaborate with the SAFMC on its regulatory amendment 
to encourage adequate protection for right whales. Additionally, NMFS 
will consult the Team and may consider future amendments to the Plan, 
if appropriate, to address new developments that affect the risk to 
right and other large whales in the South Atlantic from vertical lines 
associated with commercial fishing gear.

Comments on Effective Date

    Comment 54: One commenter recommended that NMFS provide an adequate 
period prior to implementation of the final rule to allow for public 
education and for industry to convert their gear to comply with the new 
regulations. The commenter further noted that affected states might 
need time to make changes to state trap/pot gear regulations to address 
inconsistencies between state regulations and NMFS' proposed amendments 
to the ALWTRP.
    Response: NMFS agrees and considered input from state managers and 
industry leaders to ensure that the date chosen for implementation is 
practical and provides adequate time to comply with new requirements. 
The rule will have a phased-in implementation. The rule will become 
effective 60 days after publication in the Federal Register; however, 
changes to gear marking and gear modification requirements in the 
Southeast Restricted Area North are effective November 1, 2014, and 
changes to gear marking and the minimum number of traps per trawl 
requirements in the Northeast are effective June 1, 2015. The new 
minimum trap per trawl measure requires increasing the number of traps 
per vertical line which requires removal of equipment from the water 
and reconfiguration of line and equipment. Additional time is needed 
for fishermen to adapt to these changes. The changes in the Plan 
require the reconfiguration of approximately 200,000 vertical lines at 
an annual compliance cost of approximately $1.9 to $4.5 million. NMFS 
finds that there is good cause for the phased-in implementation dates 
to address the public's concerns to provide adequate time to implement 
the requirements in a cost-effective manner and given that the impact 
on conservation benefit to large whales from this phased-in 
implementation will be minimal given the relatively short delay in 
implementation. Specifically, the majority of the conservation measures 
included in the final rule will become effective 60 days of 
publication, including protective measures during calving season and a 
closure starting January 1, 2015, and all current ALWTRP requirements, 
including the sinking groundline requirement, remain in place during 
the phased-in implementation of some of the new measures.
    Comment 55: One commenter stated that there will be a significant 
burden placed on industry to comply with the proposed measures and 
requested that

[[Page 36596]]

NMFS provide adequate time for industry to convert their gear.
    Response: NMFS is sensitive to the needs of industry to convert 
gear to the required minimum number of traps/pots per trawl and 
appropriate gear marking scheme. Typically NMFS provides 30 days for 
industry to comply with new requirements. Based on public comment, NMFS 
has agreed to provide additional time for fishermen to convert their 
gear (please see response to Comment 54).
    Comment 56: Numerous commenters requested that the implementation 
date coincide with the trap/tag date of June 1, asserting that a mid-
season implementation date in the fall is not practical.
    Response: NMFS agrees with the commenters and considered input from 
state managers and industry leaders to ensure that the date chosen for 
implementation is practical and provides adequate time to comply with 
new requirements. NMFS will have a phased in approach to the new 
requirements. Based on public comment, NMFS has agreed to provide 
additional time for fishermen to convert their gear (please see 
response to Comment 54 and 55).

Comments on Gear Marking

    Comment 57: Numerous people commented that requiring one color code 
for trap/pot lines deployed in state waters and another for Federal 
waters as proposed for the SERA N would force commercial fishermen to 
re-rig their gear because blue crab trap/pot gear is fished in state, 
Federal, or state and Federal waters depending on blue crab 
distribution. These commenters recommended a gear marking scheme that 
would allow fishers to quickly alter color markings without incurring 
the expense and labor of changing the entire line. One commenter 
requested a 3-year phase-in period because old or wet lines will not 
take paint or hold colored tape, so entirely new lines will have to be 
purchased before the fishery could come into compliance with this 
measure. However, the commenter supported the two-color marking 
requirements to differentiate trap/pot gear fished in state vs. Federal 
waters. There were also some commenters, including fishermen, who did 
not object to the proposed gear marking scheme.
    Response: The concern about different gear marking requirements 
between Federal and state waters is restricted to the blue crab fishery 
off Georgia and South Carolina. NMFS believes that the requirement for 
trap/pot gear fished in Federal waters to return to port at the end of 
a fishing trip will eliminate fishing for blue crab in Federal waters. 
Consequently, NMFS does not believe that a gear marking scheme that 
will enable trap/pot gear to be easily moved between Federal and state 
waters is needed. Furthermore, the Team highlighted that gear marking 
is an important conservation measure, specifically gear marking that 
allows gear to be distinguished between areas.
    NMFS appreciates the concern about old or wet lines not taking 
paint or holding colored tape. Since we did not receive any comments 
from trap pot fishermen regarding challenges with gear marking or the 
need for a phase-in period, NMFS does not believe these actions are 
necessary. See response to Comment 26.
    Comment 58: Many commenters support gear marking but felt the 
proposed gear marking falls short of managers' needs and a more refined 
gear marking is necessary.
    Response: Based on implementation considerations and technology 
presently available, NMFS believes the final gear marking scheme is 
appropriate. If more promising techniques become available in the 
future, NMFS will discuss them with the Team.
    Comment 59: Many commenters stated that marking in exempted waters 
would be difficult and not feasible. Many fish both inside and outside 
of the exemption area so they would need to remark their gear with a 
different color scheme every time they fish in and out of the exempted 
waters. This is not time or cost effective.
    Response: NMFS has modified the final rule based on public comment 
and will not require gear marking inside the exemption area (see 
``Changes from the Proposed Rule'' section of the preamble).
    Comment 60: Some commenters stated that if exempted waters were 
required to be marked, then Maine and New Hampshire should have 
different colors for their exempt waters and not be grouped together.
    Response: See Response to Comment 59.
    Comment 61: Some commenters stated that marking the line three 
times was excessive and 1-mark mid-way down the line is adequate. The 
commenters felt that making the current mark larger would be the 
easiest approach but were unclear if this would really make a 
difference.
    Response: NMFS believes the current gear marking scheme that 
requires only one 4-inch mark is inadequate. Frequently the line 
recovered from entanglement events is unmarked. Of the 499 entanglement 
events from 1997-2011, gear was only recovered in 170 cases. Of the 499 
entanglement events, gear marking led to 51 (10%) cases where fishery, 
location, and date were identified. NMFS believes requiring larger 
marks more frequently will increase the amount of marked line recovered 
during events and thus better inform future management decisions.
    Comment 62: Some commenters questioned the need to mark in exempt 
waters if the occurrence of whales in exempt waters is rare.
    Response: See response to Comment 59.
    Comment 63: Two commenters cited challenges with marking offshore 
gear as the gear is always wet and infrequently brought back to shore. 
The gear is also easily identified due to its size.
    Response: NMFS acknowledges this challenge but points out that 
offshore gear is currently required to be marked. The new gear marking 
scheme would expand the size and frequency of the current gear marking 
scheme.
    Comment 64: A few commenters noted that fine scale marking in the 
Gulf of Maine is justifiable and more unique color codes are necessary 
than what is being proposed.
    Response: See response to Comment 58.
    Comment 65: Many commenters opposed increased gear marking in LMA1 
(frequency, level, or size) stating that the gear marking only informs 
where the gear was set and not where the entanglement occurred. These 
commenters suggested that NMFS suspend increased gear marking 
requirements until more definitive regional markings are available.
    Response: See response to Comment 58.
    Comment 66: A few commenters suggested that NMFS modify the 
proposed gear marking to better understand the gear configuration in 
the Gulf of Maine. The commenters suggested marking by trawl length.
    Response: Various gear marking schemes were discussed by the Team 
over the course of several meetings during the development of this 
rule, including the idea suggested by the commenter. However, the Team 
could not reach agreement on how to mark gear based on the gear's 
configuration. NMFS also solicited gear marking ideas during its public 
scoping meetings, which also did not yield any feasible alternatives. 
Therefore, NMFS believes the final gear marking scheme is appropriate 
based on the current technology that exists and public comments 
received on feasibility of gear marking.
    Comment 67: One commenter suggested adding a second color for

[[Page 36597]]

each LMA. The commenter also did not support the use of orange as color 
for marking the Southern Nearshore Trap/Pot area as this is too similar 
to the red color required in other waters.
    Response: Based on implementation considerations and technology 
presently available, NMFS believes the final gear marking scheme is 
appropriate (see response to Comment 63). The current color mark for 
Southern Nearshore Trap/Pot area is orange. The final rule does not 
change this color scheme.
    Comment 68: One commenter suggested that rather than just three 
marks per line that the number of marks be increased for those fishing 
in deeper waters. The commenter also suggested marking groundlines.
    Response: Based on the public comments received, NMFS believes that 
three marks per line is adequate at this time. NMFS did not propose 
marking groundlines through this rulemaking.

Comments on Weak Links/Vertical Line

    Comment 69: Multiple commenters stated they already used weak links 
and some used weak links with fewer hog rings than required (i.e., 
lower breaking strength). These commenters stated that they did not 
have objections to the proposed weak link requirement. One commenter 
requested test trials because he did not know how many hog rings 
resulted in 200 lb (90.7 kg) breaking strength and he wanted to ensure 
the feasibility of this requirement in the blue crab fishery. Another 
commenter mentioned the importance of enforcing the existing weak link 
requirements. Other commenters recommended that 200 lb (90.7 kg) weak 
links be required throughout critical habitat or throughout SERA N.
    Response: We agree that enforcement is important and we will ensure 
that our Joint Enforcement Agreements with state agencies include 
checking weak links on trap/pot gear.
    We believe a three hog ring weak link configuration is feasible for 
the Florida blue crab fishery. We conducted five trials to test the 
breaking strength of a 3-hog ring, side-by-side configuration and each 
time found the breaking strength to be less than 200 lbs (90.7 kg) 
(NMFS unpub. data).
    We are not requiring a uniform 200 lb (90.7 kg) weak link 
throughout critical habitat or the SERA N for the same reasons a 
vertical line with maximum breaking strength of 1,500 lbs (680 kg) is 
not required (see response to Comment 70).
    Comment 70: A number of commenters submitted the following comments 
on the rope breaking strength requirement: (1) The 1,500 lb (680 kg) 
vertical line breaking strength is the most risk-averse proposal and 
should be adopted for the right whale calving area critical habitat or 
the entire Southeast restricted area; (2) NMFS does not explain why the 
Federal waters vertical line breaking strength requirements mirror 
those of Georgia and South Carolina rather than the more appropriate 
(and more conservative) Florida breaking strengths; and (3) NMFS 
attempted to rationalize different rope breaking strengths in different 
areas by stating that the lower breaking strength in Florida state 
waters would protect ``neophyte'' calves; however, these same 
``neophytes'' are born further to the north where rope breaking 
strengths are far higher and thus, presumably create potentially 
greater risk. On the other hand, some submitted comments in support of 
lower breaking strengths for vertical lines and weak links in Florida 
state waters versus those required for Georgia and South Carolina. They 
commented that right whales off Georgia and South Carolina are 
frequently found over 3 miles from the shoreline so there is less 
overlap of whales with state water fisheries, whereas right whales in 
northeast Florida frequently inhabit state waters.
    Response: NMFS does not agree with the recommendation to require 
1,500 lb (680 kg) vertical line breaking strength throughout critical 
habitat or the entire Southeast restricted area. The rationale for 
requiring different rope breaking strengths in different areas is based 
on multiple considerations: (1) Right whale mother/calf pairs in the 
Southeast most frequently occur in water depths of 10-20 m (~33-66 ft) 
(Keller et al., 2012). Florida state waters are typically deeper than 
10 m (~33 ft) closer to shore, whereas depths along the coasts of 
Georgia or South Carolina are generally less than 10 meters (~33 ft). 
Therefore, NMFS believes the probability of blue crab trap/pot gear 
interactions with mother/calf pairs is higher in Florida state waters 
than South Carolina or Georgia state waters; (2) many fishermen in 
South Carolina and Georgia state waters report their trap/pot gear can 
be partially buried in bottom sediment and therefore require stronger 
vertical lines to avoid unintentionally breaking lines during 
retrieval; and (3) offshore Federal waters are less protected and 
typically exhibit harsher conditions that require vertical lines with 
greater breaking strengths to reduce accidental gear loss and the 
potential risk to right whales from derelict gear. Consequently, NMFS 
capped the maximum vertical line breaking strength in federal waters at 
2,200 lbs (998 kg) and included the additional requirement that all 
trap/pot gear be brought back to shore at the end of each fishing trip. 
NMFS believes these combined measures provide overall risk reduction 
for right whales while taking into account their co-occurrence with 
fishing gear, bathymetry, and characteristics of fishing practices in 
offshore federal waters.

Comments on Gillnets

    Comment 71: Many commenters felt that the impact from gillnet gear 
should be included in the proposed vertical line reduction measures.
    Response: Including gillnets in the proposed measures was analyzed 
in the FEIS and rejected (See Chapter 3, Appendix 3-A of the FEIS).The 
gear characterization information in the co-occurrence model shows that 
99% of the vertical lines coastwide are from lobster trap/pot and other 
trap/pot fisheries (Exhibit 3A-1). For this reason, NMFS and the Team 
chose to focus this rule making on trap/pot gear only.
    Comment 72: One commenter suggested that a prohibition on gillnets 
be included in the Jeffreys Ledge trap/pot closure area.
    Response: The final rule does not include the Jeffreys Ledge 
closure (see the ``Changes from the Proposed Rule'' section of the 
preamble and response to Comment 42).
    Comment 73: One commenter suggested that the rule include a 
prohibition on gillnets in all proposed closure areas as well as the 
sliver management area with the current Great South Channel Restricted 
Gillnet Area.
    Response: See response to Comment 71. In addition, the amount of 
gillnet vertical lines removed as a result of the proposed closures is 
minimal compared to the trap/pot gear vertical lines removed (Chapter 3 
Exhibit 3A-2 of the FEIS). This result leads to a high economic impact 
on individual gillnet vessels but low overall conservation impacts or 
reduction in co-occurrence. Therefore, NMFS proposed the closures for 
only trap/pot gear and not for gillnet gear.

Comments on Enforcement and Monitoring

    Comment 74: Many commenters expressed their support for increased 
effort and funding for enforcement to improve compliance.
    Response: NMFS appreciates the support and acknowledges that 
enforcement is essential to the success of the Plan's regulations.
    Comment 75: One commenter stated that the status quo could be 
improved by having mandatory training for

[[Page 36598]]

disentanglement by industry members. He stated that it didn't make 
sense to wait hours for trained responders to arrive during a rescue 
situation.
    Response: NMFS has an Atlantic Large Whale Disentanglement Network 
that provides training, equipment, and authorization for responders to 
disentangle large whales. There are defined safety protocols and 
established guidelines for training and designation of response levels 
within the program. A five-level structure was established based upon 
levels of training, with respect for the inherent danger of working 
with various species of large whales. Only authorized persons may 
disentangle large whales.
    Comment 76: Multiple commenters stated that the rule does not 
address data gaps for lobster fishing in Federal waters. They suggested 
NMFS require Federal lobster permit holders to report landings, gear 
configuration, and other relevant information.
    Response: NMFS is aware that data gaps exist in certain fisheries. 
The American lobster fishery is managed cooperatively by the Atlantic 
states and NMFS under an FMP developed by the Atlantic States Marine 
Fisheries Commission (Commission), which is a deliberative body of 15 
Atlantic coastal states that coordinate the conservation and management 
of Atlantic coastal fishery resources. Under the American Lobster FMP, 
the states issue regulations for lobster fishing in state waters and 
NMFS supports the FMP by implementing regulations for fishing in 
federal waters. NMFS continues to work closely with the Commission to 
develop uniform reporting where appropriate.
    Comment 77: One commenter expressed his support for better 
enforcement and monitoring of existing regulations before proposing 
additional measures. He suggested there should be annual stock 
assessments for large whale species and a more timely decision making 
process that relies on real time information.
    Response: NMFS and the Team have developed a comprehensive 
monitoring strategy that evaluates industry compliance to the Plan's 
requirements and the overall effectiveness of the Plan in achieving its 
goals and objectives (see responses to Comments 6 and 8). NMFS 
continues to work with the U.S. Coast Guard, NOAA Office of Law 
Enforcement, and state partners through Joint Enforcement Agreements to 
enforce NMFS' regulations. NMFS currently publishes SARs for large 
whales on an annual basis because decision making processes that rely 
on real time information are challenging; NMFS, in collaboration with 
the Team, bases decisions on the best information available at that 
time.
    Comment 78: One commenter believes that the monitoring of the 
impacts of the proposed changes is unclear. The commenter recommends 
that funding for large whale scar analysis continue in order to 
determine if scarring has increased or decreased and if the reduction 
of vertical line has reduced the rate of interaction. Scarring analysis 
could also help to monitor the trend in severity of the entanglements.
    Response: Scarring analysis is included as a metric in the 
monitoring strategy (see Response to Comment 8).
    Comment 79: One commenter feels that NMFS must address the risk 
associated with emerging fisheries.
    Response: NMFS has a plan in place to deal with emerging fisheries 
through its annual List of Fisheries. Fisheries are added to the Plan 
once they are classified on the annual List of Fisheries as having 
frequent or occasional interactions with right, humpback, or fin 
whales. If an emerging fishery fits these criteria and is added to the 
List of Fisheries, then that fishery would have to abide by all the 
Plan's requirements including the proposed trawling up requirements.
    Comment 80: One commenter stated that improved enforcement and 
monitoring is needed and fisheries should be monitored on a day to day 
basis. The commenter suggested increasing the frequency of observer 
coverage or video surveillance as data collection leads to stricter 
enforcement.
    Response: NMFS agrees that enforcement and monitoring are essential 
to the Plan's success. Sea-sampling observers collect large whale 
sightings data, however, this is one of many data collection 
responsibilities and the likelihood of observing an entanglement event 
is rare.
    Comment 81: One commenter feels that there should be mandated 
reporting requirements for all states.
    Response: See response to Comment 72. NMFS will continue to work 
with state partners to improve reporting requirements to keep the 
fishing effort data in its vertical line model current. If voluntary 
reporting becomes an ineffective means to collect information, NMFS 
will work with the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission on the 
prospect of mandatory reporting.
    Comment 82: One commenter encouraged NMFS to produce more robust 
annual monitoring reports. The commenter also requested a full five 
year report be completed before the final rule assessing the sinking 
groundline rule since it has been in place for five years.
    Response: See responses to Comments 6 and 8. NMFS will assess its 
annual monitoring reports to ensure that the most useful information is 
included.
    Comment 83: One commenter recommended a requirement that all trap/
pot fishermen permitted to fish in federal waters record and submit 
data on the location, number, and length of time that endlines are 
deployed and that NMFS should describe in the FEIS precisely what data 
on endlines (e.g., number, location, and length) NMFS expects state 
fishery agencies to provide to evaluate compliance and rule 
effectiveness.
    Response: NMFS did not implement reporting in this rule-making 
because NMFS did not seek comment on this measure in the proposed rule. 
Although such reporting is outside the scope of this rulemaking, NMFS 
will consult the Team and may consider a reporting requirement in 
future rulemaking.

Comments on the Shipping Industry and/or Ship Strikes

    Comment 84: One commenter stated that he thought whales got hit by 
boats and then entangled in the line so the shipping industry should be 
held accountable.
    Response: The Recovery Plan for the North Atlantic Right Whale 
(National Marine Fisheries Service 2005) identifies vessel interactions 
and interactions with commercial fishing operations as the two primary 
sources of anthropogenic activities that result in right whale death or 
serious injury. Although the scenario suggested by the commenter is 
plausible, NMFS addresses vessel interactions and interactions with 
commercial fishing operations separately. Ship strikes are evaluated 
through a separate action in support of the implementation of the North 
Atlantic right whale ship strike strategy. The ship strike reduction 
rule, first implemented in 2008, implements regulatory measures that 
reduce the risk of ship strike to right whales, such as speed 
restrictions and vessel routing measures. The rule is one component of 
a suite of NMFS' comprehensive right whale ship strike reduction 
measures, which also includes education and outreach to commercial and 
recreational mariners, research on technologies that may help mariners 
avoid whales, a comprehensive program of sighting advisories to 
mariners, section 7 consultations to address Federal vessel activities, 
and the development of a Conservation Agreement with Canada on a ship 
strike strategy. This final rule addresses the risks to right whales 
from interactions with commercial fishing operations by reducing the 
risk of death

[[Page 36599]]

or serious injury when large whales encounter vertical lines from 
commercial trap/pot gear.
    Comment 85: One commenter stated that the ship speed rule should be 
permanent.
    Response: NMFS concurs. On December 9, 2013 NMFS published a final 
rule (78 FR 73726) that eliminated the expiration date of the ship 
strike reduction rule. The regulation is now permanent.
    Comment 86: One commenter stressed the need to address the impact 
of ship strikes.
    Response: See response to Comment 84.

Comments on the Number of Traps per Trawl

    Comment 87: Several commenters were concerned that increasing the 
number of traps per trawl would create safety issues for smaller 
fishing operations. These commenters stated that there would be 
stability issues and the potential for capsizing due to the 
distribution of weight of the additional rope and traps on board.
    Response: Because vertical lines pose a risk to whales regardless 
of vessel size, NMFS requires both small and large vessels to increase 
the number of traps per trawl to reduce the number of vertical lines in 
the water column. However, NMFS is aware of these safety concerns for 
smaller vessels. To address impacts to smaller vessels, state managers 
and industry representatives on the Team proposed utilizing a smaller 
minimum number of trap/pots per trawl. Those smaller limits in inshore 
state water areas are contained in this final rule. Also, based on 
public comment NMFS modified the final rule to allow for a minimum of 
two traps per trawl in some areas that previously would have required 
three traps per trawl. NMFS also established a \1/4\ mile buffer around 
three inhabited Maine islands to allow those small vessels to continue 
to fish single trap/pots. NMFS believes that these modifications 
address the small vessel safety concerns while still meeting the 
conservation goals of the MMPA and ESA.
    Comment 88: Several commenters disagreed with the changes to the 
inshore fishery to require pairs or triples and no longer allow 
singles. They stated that they fish around shallow bays and rugged 
bottoms so fishing with anything more than a single would create gear 
loss or damage. They suggested a near shore exemption for singles.
    Response: The final rule does not include a near shore exemption 
for singles. See response to Comment 87.
    Comment 89: One commenter stated that it appeared that concessions 
were made to minimize the hardships in meeting the plan's goal and LMA 
2 lobstermen are disproportionally affected by the proposal. The 
commenter stated that Downeast Maine lobstermen were allowed to fish 
doubles but those in LMA 2 would be required to go up to three traps 
per trawl in state waters even though there are probably 30-50% fewer 
vertical lines in LMA 2 today than in the past due to the lobster stock 
collapse.
    Response: NMFS modified the final rule based on public comment. All 
those fishing in state waters of LMA 2 will be allowed to fish doubles 
rather than the previously proposed three traps per trawl.
    Comment 90: Several commenters stated that trawls would increase 
gear conflict and thus ghost gear.
    Response: NMFS evaluated the effects of trawls on gear loss in 
Chapter 6 of the FEIS. Overall, the effect of trawling on gear loss is 
unclear. While data from a Maine trawling project completed in 2012 
suggest some potential for increased gear loss during fishermen's 
transition to trawls, the more extensive data from the Massachusetts 
ghost gear survey completed in 2011 suggest that trawls are less 
subject to gear loss in steady-state conditions. Gear loss is likely a 
function of numerous variables that extend well beyond the trawl 
configuration, including bottom structure, shipping traffic, gear 
density, gear conflicts, tides, currents, and weather events. The net 
effect of trawling in the context of all these variables is difficult 
to characterize or quantify. NMFS will continue to monitor this issue 
and consider future rulemaking if warranted.
    Comment 91: One commenter stated that it was more profitable and 
safer to fish singles than trawls.
    Response: Analysis of the impact to catch as a result of trawling 
is discussed in Chapter 6 of the FEIS. Data to support a quantitative 
analysis of trawling effects on catch are extremely limited. Because 
multiple factors influence catch rates (gear configuration, gear 
density, the abundance of the target species, bottom structure, soak 
time, individual skill, etc.), it is difficult to isolate the effect of 
trawl configuration on catch. Research has demonstrated that the 
optimal spacing of lobster traps depends upon the abundance of lobster 
in an area; the greater the density of lobster, the greater the density 
of traps that can be fished without an adverse impact on catch per trap 
(Schreiber, 2010). In Massachusetts waters, where lobster appear to be 
less dense than Maine waters, there is a possibility that changing gear 
configurations may impact catch. These impacts may diminish over time, 
as fishermen adapt to new gear configurations and learn to fish longer 
trawls more efficiently. NMFS believes that the minimum number of traps 
per trawl required and exceptions made to this requirement adequately 
address the safety concerns association with fishing trawls while still 
providing a viable economic return to fishermen.
    Comment 92: A few commenters questioned the proposal to increase 
the number of traps per trawl and stated their opinion that a whale 
would be more likely to survive a single pot entanglement than an 
entanglement in a trawl.
    Response: NMFS believes that a single line of high breaking 
strength with one or multiple traps can be deadly. Past experiences 
show that just a simple loop can kill a whale. Also, fewer vertical 
lines create a lower entanglement risk to whales.
    Comment 93: Many commenters supported the proposed number of traps 
per trawl, particularly the proposed increase outside state waters.
    Response: NMFS appreciates the support.
    Comment 94: Several commenters mentioned the danger of fishing with 
trawls in the Outer Cape citing issues related to storms, traffic, and 
tides unique to the Outer Cape.
    Response: NMFS is sensitive to these concerns and the uniqueness of 
the Outer Cape. The final rule will require those fishing on the Outer 
Cape to fish a minimum of two traps per trawl as opposed to larger 
trawls required elsewhere.
    Comment 95: A few commenters stated that many in the Outer Cape and 
Cape Cod Bay use singles and wondered if there were confirmed 
interactions with singles in these areas. If there are not then why 
penalize fishermen?
    Response: It is uncertain how many interactions there have been 
with Outer Cape and Cape Cod Bay gear. Because most large whale 
entanglements (particularly those involving right whales) tend to be 
free swimming entanglements when detected and the gear recovered from 
these entanglements do not provide adequate information to determine 
where an entanglement occurred, entanglements from specific fisheries 
and areas are rarely documented. After the implementation of the broad 
based prohibition on floating groundline in 2009, 54 new whale 
entanglements were reported: 21 in 2010 (5 right and 16 humpback), and 
33 in 2011 (11 right, 21

[[Page 36600]]

humpback, and 1 fin). The entangling gear was either retrieved or 
identified in only 15 of these incidents. NMFS must take action to 
ensure the goals of the MMPA and ESA are met.
    Comment 96: Two commenters stated that mandating one buoy line on 
trawls per five traps or less would cause a safety issue and the 
potential for gear loss and gear conflict. It is a common problem for 
boat traffic or gear conflict to cause the temporary or permanent loss 
of a buoy, connected to a vertical line, identifying a trawl. Without 
the option to haul that trawl from a second vertical line there is a 
potential for increased ghost gear.
    Response: The regulations currently require one buoy line on trawls 
having less than or equal to five traps. The final rule would not 
change this requirement.
    Comment 97: One commenter had concerns with the trawling up 
strategy, stating that those fishing in Federal waters are already 
fishing trawls with the minimum number proposed so there would be no 
reduction in vertical lines.
    Response: NMFS disagrees with this comment. The model used current 
data to estimate vertical lines based on current fishing practices and 
estimated the reduction in vertical lines that would result from 
compliance with the new requirements. This demonstrates that there 
would be a reduction in vertical lines.
    Comment 98: Two commenters felt that NMFS should set vertical line 
reduction limits and work with the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries 
Commission and Fishery Management Councils to reach those targets. One 
commenter felt that gillnet and other trap/pot fisheries should be 
included in this process as well.
    Response: The MMPA provides the authority to address marine mammal 
bycatch; NMFS is responsible for implementing the MMPA. Both the ASMFC 
and FMCs provide input to NMFS through their representatives on the 
Team. Also, see responses to Comments 12 and 47.
    Comment 99: Numerous commenters voiced safety concerns associated 
with trawling up in waters surrounding Maine's many islands. The bottom 
is rocky and shallow in this area and many small boats fish these 
waters. The waters are generally less than 30 fathoms deep and unlikely 
to increase co-occurrence risk; some suggested a \1/4\ mile exemption 
around islands from the proposal to increase the number of traps per 
trawl. One commenter suggested limiting the trawl minimums on a 
seasonal basis for areas around islands which are considered state 
waters but that are found outside the 3-mile line.
    Response: See response to Comment 87. The final rule includes a \1/
4\ mile exemption around three inhabited islands in Maine. Those 
fishing in these waters will have no minimum number of traps per trawl 
requirement; however, all other requirements would remain in place.
    Comment 100: A few commenters commented that the four pocket waters 
in Maine should maintain their current practices of fishing pairs 
rather than increasing to triples. These pocket waters are described in 
Federal law (50 CFR 697.24). Maintaining current practice in these 
waters is operationally practical for both industry and enforcement. 
One commenter also notes that the co-occurrence score near the pocket 
waters exceeds one in only one month at the head of one pocket water 
with the majority of this score located outside of the pocket water 
boundary.
    Response: NMFS modified the final rule based on public comment to 
include the definition of pocket waters. The rule defines the 
geographic location of pocket waters and applies the same gear 
requirements for traps per trawl as in state waters, and as such, those 
fishing in that area can maintain the current practice of fishing pairs 
rather than increasing to triples.
    Comment 101: Two commenters commented on Rhode Island's single pot 
fishery. They stated that three-pot trawls are not an option for small 
boats for safety reasons. They also mentioned that there is no known 
serious injury/mortality in Rhode Island state waters and the area has 
a low co-occurrence score and as such should be exempted.
    Response: NMFS modified the final rule based on public comment. The 
minimum number of traps per trawl required in Rhode Island state waters 
will be two instead of the three pot trawls originally proposed.
    Comment 102: One commenter requested NMFS to decrease the minimum 
number of traps per trawl in LMA 2 (12+) from 20 to 15.
    Response: The Preferred Alternative in the proposed rule proposed 
15 as a minimum number of traps per trawl in LMA 2 (12+). The Preferred 
Alternative in the final rule includes this as well.
    Comment 103: One commenter stated that there are indicators that 
suggest rope is too strong for whales to break free and a serious 
entanglement and/or injury could occur.
    Response: The final rule includes numerous measures to reduce the 
likelihood that a serious entanglement will occur. The rule requires a 
weaker breaking strength of rope in the Southeast where the potential 
for calves to get entangled is higher. The rule also defines a maximum 
breaking strength of weak links in the Southeast. Weak links are 
designed to reduce the breaking strength of traditional gear and have 
been in the Plan since its inception. Also, the final rule will lead to 
less vertical lines in the water which will make an encounter less 
likely.
    Comment 104: One commenter feels that it is problematic to ban 
singles in areas where recreational fishing occurs and this creates a 
double standard.
    Response: The regulations implementing the Plan are governed by 
Section 118 of the MMPA, which requires take reduction teams to assist 
NMFS in the development of take reduction plans that address serious 
injuries and mortalities of marine mammals that interact with 
commercial fishing operations. Therefore, the proposed measures apply 
to commercial fishing only. However, recreational fishermen who take 
marine mammals are in violation of the MMPA prohibition against taking 
marine mammals. However, states may choose to regulate recreational 
fisheries within their state jurisdictions.
    Comment 105: One commenter asserted that it was counterintuitive 
that there would be a ban on singles proposed in the Northeast but a 
proposal to require singles in the Southeast. The commenter questioned 
the lack of consistency between regions.
    Response: The proposed measures differ between the Northeast and 
Southeast region, as well as from state to state, to account for 
variance in fisheries, right whale habitat use, right whale life 
history stage, and environmental features. The core right whale calving 
area located within the Southeast is of particular conservation concern 
due to the presence of neophyte calves and reproducing females. Singles 
are required in this area because calves may be able to break free of 
an entanglement in lighter single trap gear configuration than from a 
heavier multiple trap trawl gear configuration. Also, in an effort to 
reduce damage to sensitive habitats, single traps/pots are preferable 
in the Southeast. The Southeast U.S. has many coastal habitats that 
include live bottom and corals; in particular, there are ample amounts 
of live bottom off the coast of Northeast Florida. Traps set in 
multiple trap trawls can damage live bottom more than single traps. 
Groundlines may drag across the bottom, potentially shearing off living 
organisms most important in providing topographic complexity (Barnette, 
2001). Furthermore, the area swept by the groundline is orders of 
magnitude greater than the cumulative area of the

[[Page 36601]]

traps themselves (Barnette, 2001). It is estimated that hauling in a 
single trap results in 30% more damage to the substrate than setting 
the trap itself (Appledorn et al., 2000); thus, hauling in multiple 
traps would increase the extent of the habitat damage more than hauling 
a single pot.
    Comment 106: One commenter stated that a number of fishermen can't 
fish the minimum number traps/trawl proposed for the 12 mile line in 
Maine. The commenter suggested proposing a `safe trawl equivalency.' 
Fishermen could fish in areas traditionally fished with a number of 
traps they feel is safe. This would be no less than 10 traps/trawl but 
they would have to apply for this equivalency and explain why they are 
not able to fish the standard limit.
    Response: NMFS appreciates the suggestion. NMFS developed the 
minimum number of traps per trawl with input from multiple stakeholder 
groups. NMFS believes that the minimum number of traps per trawl in the 
final rule is adequate, and addresses the safety concerns of industry 
while meeting the MMPA and ESA goals.
    Comment 107: One commenter suggested that the rule include a 
recommendation to maximize the number of traps per trawl as a voluntary 
measure similar to the current recommendation that ropes should be as 
knotless as possible.
    Response: NMFS appreciates this suggestion and will add the 
suggestion to maximize the number of traps per trawl in northeastern 
waters to outreach materials similar to what is done with the knotless 
rope recommendation.
    Comment 108: Numerous commenters supported the proposed increase in 
traps per trawl including adopting the proposed 6-mile line in Maine.
    Response: NMFS appreciates the support for this measure in the 
final rule.
    Comment 109: One commenter supported the proposed trawl minimums 
but stated without a defined target for reduction the trawl minimums 
are unlikely to achieve the required impact without the use of 
closures.
    Response: NMFS appreciates the support for the trawl minimums and 
agrees that both the trawl minimums and closures combined will achieve 
the best reduction in co-occurrence. The final rule includes both trawl 
minimums and a seasonal closure. Regarding the use of a defined target 
for reduction, please see the response to Comments 12 and 47.

Comments on Trap Reduction/Existing Measures

    Comment 110: A few commenters noted that LMA 2 has undergone trap 
reductions and the impact of these trap reductions should be accounted 
for when considering vertical line reductions.
    Response: The measures developed are based on a vertical line model 
that allowed us to target conservation measures in areas that have the 
highest overlap of large whale sightings per unit effort with vertical 
lines associated with commercial trap/pot and gillnet fishing. The 
model accounts for the way the fishing industry deployed its gear in 
the past, which reflect the requirements when the proposed measures 
were developed. NMFS acknowledges that effort reduction has taken 
place; however, a reduction in traps does not necessarily equate to a 
reduction in the number of vertical lines in the water column. During 
the comment period, NMFS requested comments on how best to quantify 
potential future trap reductions or increases with respect to how many 
vertical lines could be reduced or increased. NMFS did not receive any 
substantive comments addressing this issue. NMFS realizes that 
potential effort reductions or increases in the future could reduce or 
increase the number of vertical lines in the water column. NMFS, in 
consultation with the Team, has developed a monitoring strategy to 
evaluate industry compliance with the Plan and the effectiveness of the 
Plan in achieving the plan's goals and objectives. For more information 
on the monitoring strategy, please see the response to Comment 8.
    Comment 111: One commenter requested that NMFS anticipate the 
implementation of Addendum XVII to the American Lobster FMP intended to 
reduce the number of LMA 2 traps to greater than 50% in six years 
through active and passive reductions. He stated that 50% reduction in 
traps may not equate to the same vertical line reduction but it's 
anticipated the vertical line goal could be met by trap reductions and 
there should be an attempt to quantify potential line reduction from 
effort control.
    Response: See response to Comment 110.
    Comment 112: A few commenters noted that trap reductions occur when 
permits are transferred and thus the numbers of vertical lines are 
reduced. There has also been a reduction of traps because of the 
general reduction of fishermen.
    Response: See response to Comment 110.
    Comment 113: A few commenters suggested that many fishermen are 
fishing below their allotment of trap/pot gear on their permit and 
flexibility should be allowed. They stated that NMFS can reduce the 
number of vertical lines by allowing fishermen the option of either 
trawling up or fishing below their allotment of traps with less number 
of trawls.
    Response: NMFS and the Team discussed this issue at several of its 
Team meetings during the development of this rule. Similar to the 
response to Comment 105, NMFS and the Team could not quantify how 
fishing below ones trap/pot allocations equates to a reduction in the 
number of vertical lines in the water column.
    Comment 114: One commenter stated that LMA3 traps have been reduced 
by over 30% and will continue to be reduced by another 25% through 
active reduction. The passive reductions will result in 10% of 
transferred traps being retired.
    Response: See response to Comment 110.
    Comment 115: Some commenters stated that many of the goals of the 
ALWTRP are currently being achieved through the South Atlantic Fishery 
Management Council Snapper-Grouper Fishery Management Plan since it 
limits the number of endorsements, requires pot tending, requires that 
pots return to shore at the end of the fishing trip, and limits 
fishermen to a 1000 lb (453.6 kg) trip limit.
    Response: In the proposed rule, we acknowledged changes within the 
commercial black sea bass trap/pot fishery have reduced risk to large 
whales. The most important and effective risk reduction measure is that 
South Atlantic black sea bass fishing season has not co-occurred with 
the right whale season since January 2010 (i.e., no temporal or spatial 
overlap between commercial black sea bass trap/pot gear and right 
whales). However, there are other trap/pot fisheries active within the 
SERA N during the right whale calving season that NMFS must consider.

Comments on Research

    Comment 116: Many commenters expressed their support for increased 
funding for research and disentanglement.
    Response: NMFS appreciates the support for funding for both 
research and disentanglement efforts.
    Comment 117: One commenter commented that NMFS should continue to 
research and develop alternative

[[Page 36602]]

fishing gear as a way to mitigate the effect of a potential increase in 
effort outside the closure areas. The commenter encouraged the 
development of ropeless fishing or reduced breaking strength of 
vertical lines.
    Response: NMFS agrees that gear research is an important component 
of the Plan. NMFS funded two studies to look at the feasibility of 
ropeless fishing by using grapples/hooks to haul gear. There were a 
number of complications with this fishing method that made it 
infeasible from an economic and safety standpoint. At this time, 
ropeless fishing is not a feasible option. NMFS encourages the fishing 
industry, state partners, and others to work collaboratively with the 
agency to continue to develop new ideas and techniques that will reduce 
entanglement risk. NMFS is committed to gear research and development 
and, as funding allows, will continue to develop reliable and safe gear 
modifications.

Comments on Economic and Social Impacts (of the Plan)

    Comment 118: Two commenters stated that the data used for the 
offshore fishery (LMA 3) in the socio-economic analysis is flawed and 
is not an accurate depiction of the fishery.
    Response: NMFS acknowledges that the characterization of the 
offshore lobster fishery, like the characterization of other fisheries, 
is subject to the limitations of available data. The EIS attempts to 
address these limitations, where possible, by drawing on data from 
multiple sources. In the case of the offshore lobster fishery, for 
example, estimates of the impact of trawling requirements on revenues 
are based in part on catch-per-trap estimates from a 2005 survey 
conducted by the Gulf of Maine Research Institute, and in part on data 
reported in the 2009 Lobster Stock Assessment, focusing on Georges Bank 
as an indicator of offshore catch rates (see Exhibit 6-4). These and 
the other sources upon which the EIS relies constitute the best 
available information on the economic characteristics of the offshore 
lobster fishery.
    Comment 119: One commenter disagreed that, with lower landings, 
less consumer surplus will lead to a greater boat price for fishermen 
to help offset the cost or loss in revenue from these proposed 
regulations. The commenter did not believe this would occur, and 
instead thought that the U.S. imports Canadian lobsters with no import/
export quota restriction; meaning when these proposed closures result 
in lower landings from Maine, New Hampshire and Massachusetts, the U.S. 
businesses depending on this product will increase their imports from 
Canada before an increase in boat price will trickle down through 
dealers to harvesters. This may result in a higher Canadian price 
first, possibly a higher U.S. price later but nothing that will 
substitute for the projected 40-66% loss in average annual gross 
revenue.
    Response: As the EIS indicates, the dynamics of the lobster market 
are complex. The potential moderating effect of imports from Canada on 
any increase in U.S. prices adds to this complexity. In light of these 
considerations--as well as the relatively modest impact the 
alternatives would likely have on U.S. landings--the analysis does not 
attempt to adjust the estimate of economic impacts on U.S. lobstermen 
to account for a potential increase in ex-vessel prices. It simply 
notes the possibility that a reduction in catch could lead to an 
increase in prices. It does not suggest that any such increase would be 
sufficient to offset the impact of a closure, either on the vessels 
displaced by the closure or on the industry as a whole.
    Comment 120: One commenter commented that the loss in revenue as a 
result of closures will be more than predicted, stating that the cost 
is severely underestimated and that the cost per unit of co-occurrence 
reduction is much larger.
    Response: NMFS acknowledges the difficulty of predicting the impact 
of seasonal area closures on affected vessels. The EIS evaluates an 
upper and a lower bound scenario in an attempt to characterize the 
potential range of effects. In the upper bound scenario, the analysis 
assumes that vessels whose effort is displaced by the closure will not 
relocate that effort to other areas; hence, all revenue (net of 
operating cost savings) associated with this effort is assumed to be 
lost. NMFS believes this approach provides a conservative but 
reasonable high-end estimate of the potential economic impacts of a 
closure.
    The commenter also notes the relatively high cost of closures, 
compared to minimum trawl-length requirements, in achieving a reduction 
in co-occurrence scores. The summary of the impact analysis (see 
Chapter 8) explicitly addresses this issue.
    Clarification Requests for the FEIS
    Comment 121: One commenter commented that the change in number of 
vertical lines and co-occurrence is not partitioned out by state versus 
Federal and, as such, it is difficult to evaluate the proposed rule.
    Response: NMFS has attempted to present the results of the analysis 
in a manner that clearly communicates the key impacts of the 
alternatives under consideration. While presentation of some findings 
at a higher degree of geographic resolution is theoretically possible, 
developing this information would require a substantial investment of 
analytic resources. NMFS has evaluated the effectiveness of each 
alternative in reducing co-occurrence scores in all waters subject to 
the requirements of the Plan, and believes it is appropriate to report 
the impacts of each alternative at that level.
    Comment 122: One commenter requested that the discussion of weak 
links be expanded to include evidence that weak links have prevented 
entanglements, reduced the likelihood that an entangled whale would be 
seriously injured or die, have failed to prevent entanglements, or may 
be counterproductive in helping whales shed gear.
    Response: Additional information was added to the FEIS to address 
this comment.
    Comment 123: One commenter requested that the FEIS identify the 
steps NMFS will take to ensure enforcement of the new trawling up 
requirements.
    Response: See response to Comment 122.
    Comment 124: One commenter requested that the analysis be revised 
to identify criteria being used to determine when the economic costs of 
closures outweigh the conservation benefit to large whales.
    Response: As the EIS notes, NMFS' evaluation of regulatory 
alternatives is guided by the requirements of the MMPA, the ESA, and 
the National Environmental Policy Act, as well as the requirements of 
other Federal laws like the Regulatory Flexibility Act (as amended by 
the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act) and executive 
orders such as Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review. 
None of these statutes or executive orders establishes explicit 
criteria for determining when the economic costs of a regulatory 
measure outweigh its benefits when--as is the case here--costs and 
benefits cannot be fully quantified and measured. In such cases, 
identification of a preferred alternative requires an assessment of all 
information available, including information on the potential impacts 
of management measures that cannot be quantified. The preferred 
alternative that NMFS has identified was developed on the basis of such 
an assessment.
    Comment 125: One commenter requested that the FEIS provide data on

[[Page 36603]]

recent levels of fishing effort and economic impacts for proposed 
closures. Those data should include the number of affected fishermen, 
amount of gear set, and volume and net revenues of ex-vessel landings.
    Response: Chapter 6 of the EIS provides the requested parameters in 
a series of exhibits (Exhibits 6-17, 6-22, and 6-24). For each closure, 
these exhibits show the number of affected vessels, the average number 
of traps per affected vessel, and the revenue lost per trap fished. As 
explained earlier in the chapter, the lost revenue figures incorporate 
assumptions regarding the total landings per trap (in pounds) during 
the closure period.
    Exhibit 6-25 presents a concise summary of the commercial fishing 
activity each closure would be likely to affect. Exhibit 6-28 presents 
estimates of the costs associated with each closure.
    Comment 126: One commenter requested that the FEIS include a 
discussion of the full range of Team and peer reviewer comments on the 
limitations of the model.
    Response: As the EIS notes, documentation for the Vertical Line 
Model, including a detailed discussion of the model's limitations, is 
available online at https://www.nero.noaa.gov/protected/whaletrp/eis2013/. The peer review of an earlier draft of the model's 
documentation is available at the same Web site.
    A summary of each of the 16 public hearings held in 2013 to solicit 
comments on the DEIS is available online at https://www.nero.noaa.gov/protected/whaletrp/vlr2013/. These summaries include comments 
made on the limitations of the Vertical Line Model, as well as other 
aspects of the DEIS.
    Written comments on the DEIS are publicly available as part of the 
regulatory docket for this rulemaking. Volume II of the FEIS provides a 
summary of these comments, along with NMFS' responses. This includes 
comments submitted by members of the Atlantic Large Whale Take 
Reduction Team, as well as comments submitted by others, concerning the 
limitations of the Vertical Line Model.
    Comment 127: One commenter stated that there is no part of LMA3 
that is within the 3-12 mile zone so this should be corrected in the 
traps per trawl proposals.
    Response: This correction has been made.
    Comment 128: One commenter requested that the FEIS include a more 
thorough explanation and discussion on the following: impacts to sea 
turtles, rationale for continuing to exempt portions of Maine waters, 
recent fishery management actions, ocean noise, offshore energy 
development, and impacts and risks of chronic entanglements.
    Response: The FEIS was updated to include a more thorough 
explanation.
    Comment 129: One commenter commented that NMFS did not provide a 
sufficient variety of alternatives in the DEIS. The commenter suggested 
additional alternatives including reducing co-occurrence by 50%, 
mandating reductions in the amount of gear that can be used and season 
it is fished, and addressing gillnets.
    Response: The Council on Environmental Quality guidance states that 
when there is a potentially large number of alternatives exist only a 
reasonable number of examples, covering a spectrum of alternatives, 
must be analyzed and compared in the EIS. NMFS believes that the number 
of alternatives (seven) analyzed in the EIS was adequate. The 
alternatives analyzed were a combination of stakeholder proposals 
developed by the Team during the course of several meetings and the 
result of input received during the 15 public scoping meetings.
    Comment 130: One commenter requested that the FEIS include adjusted 
co-occurrence scores for the mid-Atlantic as was done for the Northeast 
to account for areas with minimal to no survey effort.
    Response: NMFS considered expanding the analysis presented in 
Appendix 5-B of the EIS to include the mid-Atlantic, but concluded that 
to do so would be overly speculative, given the relative dearth of both 
survey effort and opportunistic sightings data in the region for much 
of year. Rather than suggest a greater understanding of the potential 
for co-occurrence in the mid-Atlantic than the data warrant, NMFS chose 
to limit the analysis to the Northeast, where the effort to fill gaps 
in the effort-corrected sightings data would be better informed by 
opportunistic data on the presence of whales. Note too that the primary 
purpose of the analysis presented in Appendix 5-B is to examine how the 
use of adjusted sightings data would influence NMFS' assessment of the 
impact of the vertical line management measures under consideration. 
With the exception of gear marking, none of these measures apply to 
mid-Atlantic waters. Thus, while development of adjusted sightings 
scores for the mid-Atlantic would alter the estimates of absolute 
impacts on co-occurrence, it would have no effect on the relative 
ranking of alternatives with respect to this measure.

Comments on the Co-Occurrence Model

    Comment 131: One commenter stated that the projections of risk 
reduction from a model are not accurate and don't work in the real 
world.
    Response: NMFS acknowledges the uncertainties inherent in any 
attempt to model complex interrelationships, such as that between 
commercial fishing activity and entanglement risk. Through its research 
programs, NMFS has invested considerable resources in improving our 
understanding of these issues. While uncertainties remain, NMFS 
believes that the co-occurrence model makes appropriate use of the 
information available to help guide development and assessment of 
alternative management measures. As better information is developed, 
NMFS will incorporate it into the analytic tools it employs to inform 
the further development of the Plan.
    Comment 132: A few commenters commented that there is a lack of 
statistical conclusion in the model citing the comments of one of the 
peer reviewers that ``this version of model is not ready to be used in 
a management application until its performance has been validated or 
compared with other approaches''.
    Response: The data the Vertical Line Model employs were derived 
from a variety of sources, including fishing reports, surveys, and 
expert judgment, not all of which are amenable to statistical analysis; 
thus, it is not possible to generate statistical confidence intervals 
that characterize the uncertainty in the model's output. In addition, 
the availability of data to validate the model is limited. When such 
information is available--as was the case with data on vertical line 
use in Massachusetts--NMFS has employed it to refine the model. NMFS 
has also shared information with other researchers who are attempting 
to model various indicators of entanglement risk, and has invited them 
to share information on their approaches with the Team. To NMFS' 
knowledge, however, these models have yet to be completed. Until they 
are more fully developed, attempts to validate the Vertical Line Model 
through comparisons with these models would be premature. NMFS will 
consider the recommendation to make such comparisons in future model 
development, analysis, and rulemaking efforts.
    Comment 133: One commenter stated that the data used in the model 
is not sufficient for the intended purpose and

[[Page 36604]]

stated that the use of Right Whale Consortium data only for all whale 
species was not appropriate. Inclusion of data outside this database 
would provide a more balanced and complete picture.
    Response: NMFS incorporated the Right Whale Consortium data into 
the Vertical Line Model at the recommendation of the Team. Members of 
the team have also expressed interest in expanding the data the model 
considers to include information on the presence or distribution of 
whales from other sources, such as acoustic monitoring systems. NMFS 
recognizes the potential value of this information, but notes that 
incorporation of data from these sources raises issues of comparability 
and consistency that it has yet to investigate and resolve. Addressing 
these issues and incorporating the data into the model would delay 
action on modification of the Plan, which would be inconsistent with 
the timeline for action to which NMFS has committed. NMFS believes that 
the information the model incorporates at this time is sufficient to 
guide development and assessment of alternative management measures. 
NMFS will consider the recommendation to incorporate additional data in 
future model development, analysis, and rulemaking efforts.
    Comment 134: One commenter suggested that after a final rule has 
been adopted, NMFS should revise the current model or develop a new one 
more suitable to estimate the extent to which co-occurrence between 
whales and gear would be reduced, and the uncertainty of this estimate.
    Response: NMFS will consider this recommendation in future model 
development, analysis, and rulemaking efforts.
    Comment 135: One commenter requested that a study be completed to 
validate the model against results of an alternative co-occurrence 
model at least for LMA 1. Based on those results the model should be 
modified and co-occurrence estimates recalculated.
    Response: As noted above, NMFS will consider this recommendation in 
future model development, analysis, and rulemaking efforts.
    Comment 136: One commenter stated that the model is not an accurate 
method to detect whales as it only relies on visual sightings. It's 
possible that other important areas exist and alternate technology to 
detect high risk areas needs to be included in the model.
    Response: The sightings dataset upon which the model relies was 
incorporated into the model at the recommendation of the Team. Members 
of the team have also expressed interest in expanding the data the 
model considers to include information on the presence or distribution 
of whales from other sources, such as acoustic monitoring systems. Also 
see response to Comment 133.
    Comment 137: A few commenters had concerns regarding the adequacy 
of the model and commented that NMFS should discuss the model's 
limitations and how they affect model output.
    Response: The documentation for the Vertical Line Model, including 
a discussion of the model's limitations, is available online at https://www.nero.noaa.gov/protected/whaletrp/eis2013/. The peer 
review of an earlier draft of the model's documentation is available at 
the same site. See also response to Comment 126.
    Comment 138: A few commenters commented that additional data and 
approaches should be used to strengthen the accuracy of the model. The 
commenters stated that the model was based on outdated data and had 
concerns about averaging fishing effort across large areas as well as 
the failure to include opportunistic, acoustic, and telemetry data on 
whale distribution.
    Response: As noted above, NMFS will consider these recommendations 
in future model development, analysis, and rulemaking efforts.
    Comment 139: A few commenters commented that the model fails to 
provide adequate information regarding uncertainty. The commenters 
suggested that NMFS provide a qualitative score that ranks the quality 
of data that was input into each analysis cell.
    Response: NMFS will consider this recommendation in future model 
development, analysis, and rulemaking efforts. NMFS notes, however, 
that the model's documentation already includes a detailed description 
of the fishing effort data upon which the model relies, along with 
detailed discussions of the limitations of the data. Similarly, the 
documentation discusses the limitations of the whale sightings data and 
presents a detailed analysis showing the effect of adjusting for key 
data gaps and uncertainties. NMFS believes that this information 
provides a more than adequate description of the limitations of the 
model.
    Comment 140: A few commenters commented that the model appears 
sensitive to the presence of whales but a basic examination of the 
sensitivity of the model to all inputs would be helpful. NMFS needs to 
evaluate uncertainty even if the evaluation is qualitative in nature.
    Response: NMFS will consider this recommendation in future model 
development, analysis, and rulemaking efforts.
    Comment 141: A few commenters commented that the model should 
include all data on distribution of whales, that NMFS should ask states 
for data on fishing activity and investigate the possibility of 
modeling activity in relation to physical parameters and environmental 
conditions to address data gaps. The commenters also suggested 
investigating alternative models that calculate risk.
    Response: As noted above, the whale sightings dataset upon which 
the model relies was incorporated into the model at the recommendation 
of the Team. Members of the team have also expressed interest in 
expanding the data the model considers to include information on the 
presence or distribution of whales from other sources, and to include 
information on physical parameters (e.g., depth) or environmental 
conditions (e.g., the presence of prey species) that may identify areas 
that whales are likely to frequent. NMFS recognizes the potential value 
of this information and will consider this recommendation in future 
model development, analysis, and rulemaking efforts.
    NMFS has collaborated closely with state fisheries managers to 
obtain all available data on fishing activity (and other parameters) 
for use in the Vertical Line Model. Similarly, NMFS has shared 
information with other researchers who are attempting to model various 
indicators of entanglement risk, and has invited them to share 
information on their approaches with the Team. NMFS will continue to 
work collaboratively with these groups to ensure that development of 
the Plan takes appropriate advantage of the information and insights 
they can provide.

Changes From the Proposed Rule

    NMFS changed the preferred alternative from the one identified in 
the proposed rule published on July 16, 2013 (78 FR 42654). That 
alternative was then modified slightly based on public comments 
received during the comment period. The preferred alternative is the 
most cost-effective of the alternatives when comparing co-occurrence 
reduction to cost of compliance. The measures proposed in the final 
rule would achieve nearly as great a reduction in co-occurrence as what 
was presented in the proposed rule at approximately 57 to 70 percent of 
the estimated cost. The modifications are within the range of 
previously

[[Page 36605]]

analyzed effects and do not constitute a substantial change from the 
DEIS. The modifications continue to increase the likelihood of meeting 
the requirements and goals of MMPA section 118 to reduce serious injury 
and mortality to below PBR and approaching ZMRG, taking into account 
the economics of the fishery, the availability of existing technology, 
and existing fishery management plans. The modifications are listed 
below:
    (1) NMFS received numerous comments questioning the rationale of 
proposing closures that would result in large economic loss for the 
industry but little reduction in co-occurrence and thus little 
conservation gain. NMFS is sensitive to the cost of complying with the 
final rule and has analyzed these costs in Chapter 7 of the FEIS. The 
final rule will implement one seasonal trap/pot closure (Massachusetts 
Restricted Area) instead of the three originally proposed under 
Alternative 5. This closure area includes Cape Cod Bay, the Outer Cape, 
and portions of Massachusetts Bay.
    (2) The final rule will exempt New Hampshire State waters from the 
minimum number of traps per trawl requirement implemented in this final 
rule. Those fishing in New Hampshire state waters will still have to 
comply with other existing requirements. This is a change from the 
proposed rule, which exempted New Hampshire from all requirements. NMFS 
received numerous comments against relaxing current management 
measures.
    (3) The minimum number of traps per trawl in the final rule changes 
slightly from what was proposed. In the proposed rule NMFS acknowledged 
that the proposed limits for inshore waters might still result in some 
difficulty for smaller vessels, so NMFS requested comments on whether 
the final regulations should be adjusted so that the number of traps 
per trawl is limited by specific vessel sizes. In addition, NMFS 
requested public comment on whether the net benefits of the rule would 
be affected, either positively or negatively, by exempting vessels 
under a particular size class. NMFS received many comments reiterating 
the safety concerns of those who fish close to shore. Several 
commenters disagreed with exempting vessels from the minimum number of 
traps per trawl requirement. After reviewing all comments NMFS decided 
not to institute a small boat exemption. Instead the final rule allows 
for a minimum number of two traps per trawl to be fished in Rhode 
Island and Massachusetts state waters instead of the proposed minimum 
of three traps per trawl.
    (4) The final rule allows for `pocket waters' in Maine to fish a 
minimum of two traps per trawl instead of three. NMFS received multiple 
comments requesting that these waters be treated the same as state 
waters and allowed to fish pairs. Allowing those fishing in these 
waters to fish under the same requirements as proposed for the rest of 
Maine's state waters will help with enforcement.
    (5) The final rule will create a \1/4\ mile buffer in waters 
surrounding three inhabited islands in Maine--Monhegan, Matinicus, and 
Ragged Island. Boats fishing within this \1/4\ mile buffer will be 
allowed to continue the current practice of fishing singles. NMFS 
received comments expressing concern with safety issues surrounding an 
increase of traps per trawl in these waters. The waters surrounding 
these islands are generally less than 30 fathoms deep with rocky edges. 
It would not be feasible for small boats to fish trawls greater than 
singles in this area.
    (6) The final rule will not require gear marking in the exempted 
waters of Maine. NMFS received numerous comments from those industry 
members who fish in both exempt and non-exempt waters. Common concerns 
included the feasibility of switching marks when moving from an exempt 
area to a non-exempt area; cost of `double' marking lines; and the 
rationale for needing to mark line in an area that is already exempt.

Classification

    This final rule has been determined to be not significant for the 
purposes of Executive Order 12866. This final rule contains collection 
of information requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act 
(PRA), specifically, the marking of fishing gear. The collection of 
information requirement was approved by OMB under control number (0648-
0364). Public comment was sought regarding whether this proposed 
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance and 
function of the agency, including: the practical utility of the 
information; the accuracy of the burden estimate; the opportunities to 
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be 
collected; and the ways to minimize the burden of the collection of 
information, including the use of automated collection techniques or 
other forms of information technology. Send comments regarding this 
burden estimate, or any other aspect of this data collection, including 
suggestions for reducing the burden, to NMFS (see ADDRESSES) and by 
email to OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov, or fax to (202) 395-7285.
    This collection of information requirement applies to a total of 
4,006 vessels. Model vessel types were developed for gillnet fisheries, 
lobster trap/pot fisheries, and other trap/pot fisheries. Total burden 
hours for all vessels is 32,775 hours over three years or 10,925 hours 
per year. Total cost burden for all vessels is $21,631 over three years 
or $7,231 per year. For more information, please see the PRA submission 
associated with this rulemaking.
    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is 
required to respond to, nor shall any 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.
    As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, NMFS prepared a 
final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) for this final rule. The 
FRFA incorporates a summary of the issues raised by the public comments 
in response to the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, NMFS 
responses to those comments provided elsewhere in the preamble to this 
final rule, and a summary of the analyses completed to support the 
final rule. A summary of that FRFA follows: The objective of this final 
rule, issued pursuant to section 118 of the MMPA, is to reduce the 
level of serious injury and mortality of right, humpback, and fin 
whales in commercial east coast trap/pot and gillnet fisheries.
    Six alternatives, consisting of the status quo, one preferred 
alternative, and four additional alternatives were evaluated using 
model vessels, each of which represents a group of vessels that share 
similar operating characteristics and would face similar requirements 
under a given regulatory alternative. Both an upper and lower bound of 
annual compliance costs for lobster and other trap/pot were analyzed. 
The final preferred alternative is a modification to the original 
preferred alternative. A summary of analysis describing the potential 
range of compliance costs follows:
    1. NMFS considered a ``no action'' or status quo alternative 
(Alternative 1) that would result in no changes to the current measures 
under the Plan and, as such, would result in no additional economic 
effects on the fishing industry.
    2. Alternative 2, would implement new gear marking restrictions 
coastwide, increase traps per trawl, and require the use of weaker weak 
links

[[Page 36606]]

and/or vertical lines of lower breaking strength. This alternative 
would also implement a new management area in the Southeast. Under this 
alternative, the average annual vessel compliance costs would equal or 
range from $1.8 to $4.5 million for lobster trap/pot vessels; $430,000 
to $849,000 for other trap/pot vessels; $7,000 for blue crab and $5,000 
for gillnet vessels.
    3. Alternative 3 would implement all of the requirements of 
Alternative 2, except the number of traps per trawl required in Maine 
would differ. Under this alternative NMFS proposes a closure in the 
Cape Cod Bay from February 1 through April 30. In addition, New 
Hampshire state waters would be exempt from the Plan's requirements. 
Under this alternative, the average annual vessel compliance costs 
would equal or range from $1.6 to $3.6 million for lobster trap/pot 
vessels; $414,000 to $833,000 for other trap/pot vessels; $7,000 for 
blue crab and $5,000 for gillnet vessels.
    4. Alternative 4 would implement all of the requirements of 
Alternative 2. In addition, NMFS would require three closures: (1) 
Jordan Basin from November 1 through January 31; (2) Jeffreys Ledge 
from October 1 through January 31; and (3) Cape Cod Bay (including a 
portion of the Outer Cape and abutting the Great South Channel) from 
January 1 through April 30. Under this alternative, the average annual 
vessel compliance costs would equal or range from $3.1 to $6.5 million 
for lobster trap/pot vessels; $430,000 to $849,000 for other trap/pot 
vessels; and $7,000 for blue crab and $5,000 for gillnet vessels.
    5. Alternative 5 is a combination of Alternatives 2, 3, and 4. The 
traps per trawl for Maine would mimic what is required under 
alternative 3; traps per trawl in all other areas would mimic what is 
required under Alternative 2. New Hampshire state waters would be 
exempt under Alternative 5. The closures proposed under Alternative 4 
would remain in place under Alternative 5. Under this alternative, the 
average annual vessel compliance costs would equal or range from $2.9 
to $5.5 million for lobster trap/pot vessels; $414,000 to $833,000 for 
other trap/pot vessels; and $7,000 for blue crab and $5,000 for gillnet 
vessels.
    6. Alternative 6 would implement all of the requirements of 
Alternative 5 with a few exceptions. Doubles would be required in 
Massachusetts state waters instead of three traps per trawl. Also, only 
one closure would be implemented. From January 1 through April 30 Cape 
Cod Bay and the Outer Cape would be closed to fishing. Under this 
alternative, the average annual vessel compliance costs would equal or 
range from $2.2 to $4.4 million for lobster trap/pot vessels; $416,000 
to $836,000 for other trap/pot vessels; and $7,000 for blue crab and 
$5,000 for gillnet vessels.
    A Notice of Availability for the FEIS was issued on May 16, 2014 
(79 FR 28508). The FEIS describes the impacts of the measures on the 
environment. On June 20, 2014 NMFS issued a Record of Decision 
identifying the selected alternative. A copy of the Record of Decision 
is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES).
    NMFS selected Alternative 6 as the preferred alternative but 
modified it slightly. The preferred alternative would implement all of 
the requirements of Alternative 6 with a few exceptions. Two traps per 
trawl would be required in both Massachusetts and Rhode Island state 
waters instead of three traps per trawl. New Hampshire state waters 
would only be exempt from the proposed minimum number of traps per 
trawl requirement. Maine exempted waters would not be required to gear 
mark as previously proposed. The final rule allows for those fishing in 
`pocket waters' in Maine to fish a minimum of two traps per trawl 
instead of three and creates a \1/4\ mile buffer around three inhabited 
islands in Maine that would be allowed to continue traditional fishing 
practices. Under this alternative, the average annual vessel compliance 
costs would equal or range from $1.5 to $3.6 million for lobster trap/
pot vessels; $416,000 to $835,000 for other trap/pot vessels; and 
$7,000 for blue crab and $5,000 for gillnet vessels. NMFS solicited 
public comments on both the DEIS (78 FR 41927, July 13, 2013) and 
proposed rule (78 FR 42654, July 16, 2013) through several different 
means including written comments. The public also had the opportunity 
to provide oral comments at 16 public hearings from Maine to Florida. A 
summary of all comments received and NMFS' Reponses is included in 
Volume II of the FEIS. Numerous issues were raised by the public 
regarding to the expected effects of this final rule. Areas of concern 
included: the implementation time for the new requirements, the 
practicality of the proposed gear marking scheme, safety and 
feasibility of the proposed minimum number of traps per trawl, the 
effects of the proposed seasonal trap/pot closures, and the rationale 
for proposing changes to the vertical line and weak link breaking 
strength in the proposed Southeast Restricted Area North.
    NMFS formulated the final preferred alternative based on these 
public comments. This final preferred alternative introduces changes 
including: delineating a \1/4\ mile buffer around three Maine islands 
to allow current fishing practices to continue, allowing pairs to be 
fished in Rhode Island state waters and the pocket waters of Maine, and 
exempting New Hampshire state waters from the minimum number of traps 
per trawl requirements only. These and other variations decrease the 
number of affected vessels and result in reductions in compliance 
costs, while sacrificing little in terms of entanglement risk 
reduction.
    The small entities affected by this final rule are commercial 
gillnet and trap/pot fishermen. The geographic range of the final rule 
includes the Northeast Atlantic, Mid-Atlantic, and Southeast Atlantic 
waters. In the lobster trap/pot fishery, there are potentially 3,186 
vessels that would be affected. In the other trap/pot fisheries, there 
are potentially 274 vessels that would be affected. In the blue crab 
fishery there are potentially 48 vessels that would be affected. In the 
gillnet fishery, there are approximately 498 vessels that would be 
affected. All vessels are assumed to be small entities within the 
meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    NMFS has determined that this action is consistent to the maximum 
extent practicable with the approved coastal management programs of the 
U.S. Atlantic coastal states. This determination was submitted for 
review by the responsible state agencies under section 307 of the 
Coastal Zone Management Act. The following states agreed with NMFS' 
determination: Connecticut; Delaware; Florida; New Hampshire; New 
Jersey; North Carolina; Rhode Island; South Carolina; and Virginia. 
Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, and New York did not respond; 
therefore, consistency is inferred. Georgia conditionally concurred 
with NMFS' conclusion that the action is consistent with enforceable 
policies of the approved coastal management program for that state; 
however, the Georgia conditional occurrence was treated as an objection 
because NMFS could not meet the state agency's conditions.
    The Georgia Coastal Management Program (GCMP) was concerned that 
the proposed gear marking scheme would create significant economic 
burden on the fishery and stated that a method should be developed to 
allow industry to quickly alter markings when moving gear from state to 
Federal waters. For concurrence, GCMP required the Alternative to be 
modified to include alternative gear marking schemes that

[[Page 36607]]

would allow expeditious changes between state and Federal waters and 
this scheme should be phased in over a three year period in the 
Southeast. This final rule does not include a phase in of gear marking 
nor does it change the gear marking scheme from what was proposed. 
Thus, NMFS did not meet all the state agency's conditions. NMFS 
believes the final rule will implement modifications to the Plan deemed 
necessary by NMFS to meet the goals of the ESA and MMPA. Therefore, 
pursuant to 15 CFR 930.4, the requirements of paragraphs (a) (1) 
through (3) were not met and the GCMP no longer concurs with the 
determination that the proposed measures are consistent to the maximum 
extent practicable with the GCMP.
    This final rule contains policies with federalism implications as 
that term is defined in Executive Order 13132. Accordingly, the 
Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs 
provided notice of the proposed action to the appropriate official(s) 
of affected state, local, and/or tribal governments. No concerns were 
raised by the states contacted; hence, NMFS will infer that these 
states concur with the finding that the regulations for amending the 
Plan were consistent with fundamental federalism principles and 
federalism policymaking criteria.
    An informal consultation under the ESA for this final rule to 
modify the Plan was concluded on August 16, 2013. As a result of the 
informal consultation, the Regional Administrator determined that the 
measures to modify the Plan do not meet the triggers for reinitiation 
of consultation. NMFS completed an ESA Section 7 consultation on the 
implementation of the Plan on July 15, 1997, and concluded that the 
action was not likely to adversely affect any ESA-listed species under 
NMFS jurisdiction. Two subsequent consultations were completed in 2004 
and 2008, when NMFS changed some of the measures in the Plan. NMFS, as 
both the action agency and the consulting agency, reviewed the changes 
and determined that the measures as revised through rulemaking would 
not affect ESA-listed species under NMFS jurisdiction in a manner that 
had not been previously considered.

References

Appledorn, R.S., M. Nemeth, J. Vasslides, and S.M. 2000. The effects 
of fish traps on benthic habitats off La Parguera, Puerto Rico. 
Caribbean Fishery Management Council, Hato Rey, Puerto Rico.
Barnette, M.C. 2001. A review of the fishing gear utilized within 
the Southeast Region and their potential impacts on essential fish 
habitat. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEF SC-449, 62pp.
Johnson, A.J., G.S. Salvador, J.F. Kenney, J. Robbins, S.D. Kraus, 
S.C. Landry, and P.J. Clapham, Fishing gear involved in 
entanglements of right and humpback whales, Marine Mammal Science 
21(4):635-645, 2005.
Knowlton, A., S. Landry, J. Robbins, and T. Werner. 2011. Breaking 
strength and diameter of rope taken off entangled North Atlantic 
right whales in relation to wound severity and age. Pages 161 in 
19th Biennial Conference on the Biology of Marine Mammals, Tampa, 
Florida.
McCarron, P. and H. Tetreault, Lobster Pot Gear Configurations in 
the Gulf of Maine, 2012.
Morano, J.L., A.N. Rice, J.T. Tielens, B.J. Estabrook, A. Murray, 
B.L. Roberts and C.W. Clark. 2012. Acoustically Detected Year-Round 
Presence of Right Whales in an Urbanized Migration Corridor. 
Conservation Biology 28:698-707.
Mussoline, SE., D. Risch, C.W. Clark, L.T. Hatch, M.T. Weinrich, 
D.N. Wiley, M.A. Thompson, P.J. Corkeron and S.M. Van Parijs. 2012. 
Seasonal and diel variation of the North Atlantic right whale up-
call: implications for management and conservation in the 
Northwestern Atlantic Ocean. Endangered Species Research 17:17-26.
National Marine Fisheries Service. 2005. Recovery Plan for the North 
Atlantic Right Whale (Eubalaena glacialis). National Marine 
Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD.
Schreiber, Laurie, ``Lobster Catch-to-Trap Ratio Studied,'' 
Fisherman's Voice, Vol. 15, No. 4, April 2010.
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P

[[Page 36608]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27JN14.000


[[Page 36609]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27JN14.001


[[Page 36610]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR27JN14.002

BILLING CODE 3510-22-C

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 229

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

    Dated: June 20, 2014.
Eileen Sobeck,
Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries 
Service.

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

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

0
1. The authority citation for 50 CFR part 229 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.; Sec.  229.32(f) also issued 
under 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.


0
2. In Sec.  229.2, the definition of ``Groundline'' is revised to read 
as follows:


Sec.  229.2  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Groundline, with reference to trap/pot gear, means a line 
connecting traps in a trap trawl, and, with reference to gillnet gear, 
means a line connecting a gillnet or gillnet bridle to an anchor.
* * * * *

0
3. In Sec.  229.3, revise paragraphs (h) through (j) and remove and 
reserve paragraphs (k) and (l) to read as follows:


Sec.  229.3  Prohibitions.

* * * * *
    (h) It is prohibited to own, operate, or be on board a vessel 
subject to the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan except if that 
vessel and all fishing gear comply with all applicable provisions of 
Sec.  229.32.
    (i) It is prohibited to fish for, catch, take, harvest or possess 
fish or wildlife while on board a vessel subject to the Atlantic Large 
Whale Take Reduction Plan, except if that vessel and all fishing gear 
is in compliance with all applicable provisions of Sec.  229.32.
    (j) Any person or vessel claiming the benefit of any exemption or 
exception under Sec.  229.32 has the burden of proving that the 
exemption or exception, is applicable.
    (k) [Reserved]
    (l) [Reserved]
* * * * *
0
4. Section 229.32 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  229.32  Atlantic large whale take reduction plan regulations.

    (a)(1) Purpose and scope. The purpose of this section is to 
implement the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction

[[Page 36611]]

Plan to reduce incidental mortality and serious injury of fin, 
humpback, and right whales in specific Category I and Category II 
commercial fisheries from Maine through Florida. Specific Category I 
and II commercial fisheries within the scope of the Plan are identified 
and updated in the annual List of Fisheries. The measures identified in 
the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan are also intended to 
benefit minke whales, which are not designated as a strategic stock, 
but are known to be taken incidentally in gillnet and trap/pot 
fisheries. The gear types affected by this plan include gillnets (e.g., 
anchored, drift, and shark) and traps/pots. The Assistant Administrator 
may revise the requirements set forth in this section in accordance 
with paragraph (i) of this section.
    (2) Regulated waters. (i) The regulations in this section apply to 
all U.S. waters in the Atlantic except for the areas exempted in 
paragraph (a)(3) of this section.
    (ii) The six-mile line referred to in paragraph (c)(2)(iii) of this 
section is a line connecting the following points (Machias Seal to Isle 
of Shoals):

44[deg]31.98' N. lat., 67[deg]9.72' W. long (Machias Seal)
44[deg]3.42' N. lat., 68[deg]10.26' W. long (Mount Desert Island)
43[deg]40.98' N. lat., 68[deg]48.84' W. long (Matinicus)
43[deg]39.24' N. lat., 69[deg]18.54' W. long (Monhegan)
43[deg]29.4' N. lat., 70[deg]5.88' W. long (Casco Bay)
42[deg]55.38' N. lat., 70[deg]28.68' W. long (Isle of Shoals)

    (iii) The pocket waters referred to in paragraph (c)(2)(iii) of 
this section are defined as follows:

West of Monhegan Island in the area north of the line 43[deg]42.17' 
N. lat., 69[deg]34.27' W. long and 43[deg]42.25' N. lat., 
69[deg]19.3' W. long
East of Monhegan Island in the area located north of the line 
43[deg]44' N. lat., 69[deg]15.08' W. long and 43[deg]48.17' N. lat., 
69[deg]8.02' W. long
South of Vinalhaven Island in the area located west of the line 
43[deg]52.31' N. lat., 68[deg]40' W. long and 43[deg]58.12' N. lat., 
68[deg]32.95' W. long
South of Bois Bubert Island in the area located northwest of the 
line 44[deg]19.27' N. lat., 67[deg]49.5' W. long and 44[deg]23.67' 
N. lat., 67[deg]40.5' W. long

    (3) Exempted waters. (i) The regulations in this section do not 
apply to waters landward of the first bridge over any embayment, 
harbor, or inlet in Massachusetts.
    (ii) The regulations in this section do not apply to waters 
landward of the 72 COLREGS demarcation lines (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 with the exception of the COLREGS lines for Casco Bay 
(Maine), Portsmouth Harbor (New Hampshire), Gardiners Bay and Long 
Island Sound (New York), and the state of Massachusetts.
    (iii) Other exempted waters. The regulations in this section do not 
apply to waters landward of the following lines:

Maine

    A line connecting the following points (Quoddy Narrows/US-Canada 
border to Odiornes Pt., Portsmouth, New Hampshire):

44[deg]49.67' N. lat., 66[deg]57.77' W. long. (R N ``2'', Quoddy 
Narrows)
44[deg]48.64' N. lat., 66[deg]56.43' W. long. (G ``1'' Whistle, West 
Quoddy Head)
44[deg]47.36' N. lat., 66[deg]59.25' W. long. (R N ``2'', Morton 
Ledge)
44[deg]45.51' N. lat., 67[deg]02.87' W. long. (R ``28M'' Whistle, 
Baileys Mistake)
44[deg]37.70' N. lat., 67[deg]09.75' W. long. (Obstruction, 
Southeast of Cutler)
44[deg]27.77' N. lat., 67[deg]32.86' W. long. (Freeman Rock, East of 
Great Wass Island)
44[deg]25.74' N. lat., 67[deg]38.39' W. long. (R ``2SR'' Bell, 
Seahorse Rock, West of Great Wass Island)
44[deg]21.66' N. lat., 67[deg]51.78' W. long. (R N ``2'', Petit 
Manan Island)
44[deg]19.08' N. lat., 68[deg]02.05' W. long. (R ``2S'' Bell, 
Schoodic Island)
44[deg]13.55' N. lat., 68[deg]10.71' W. long. (R ``8BI'' Whistle, 
Baker Island)
44[deg]08.36' N. lat., 68[deg]14.75' W. long. (Southern Point, Great 
Duck Island)
43[deg]59.36' N. lat., 68[deg]37.95' W. long. (R ``2'' Bell, Roaring 
Bull Ledge, Isle Au Haut)
43[deg]59.83' N. lat., 68[deg]50.06' W. long. (R ``2A'' Bell, Old 
Horse Ledge)
43[deg]56.72' N. lat., 69[deg]04.89' W. long. (G ``5TB'' Bell, Two 
Bush Channel)
43[deg]50.28' N. lat., 69[deg]18.86' W. long. (R ``2 OM'' Whistle, 
Old Man Ledge)
43[deg]48.96' N. lat., 69[deg]31.15' W. long. (GR C ``PL'', Pemaquid 
Ledge)
43[deg]43.64' N. lat., 69[deg]37.58' W. long. (R ``2BR'' Bell, 
Bantam Rock)
43[deg]41.44' N. lat., 69[deg]45.27' W. long. (R ``20ML'' Bell, Mile 
Ledge)
43[deg]36.04' N. lat., 70[deg]03.98' W. long. (RG N ``BS'', Bulwark 
Shoal)
43[deg]31.94' N. lat., 70[deg]08.68' W. long. (G ``1'', East Hue and 
Cry)
43[deg]27.63' N. lat., 70[deg]17.48' W. long. (RW ``WI'' Whistle, 
Wood Island)
43[deg]20.23' N. lat., 70[deg]23.64' W. long. (RW ``CP'' Whistle, 
CapePorpoise)
43[deg]04.06' N. lat., 70[deg]36.70' W. long. (R N ``2MR'', Murray 
Rock)
43[deg]02.93' N. lat., 70[deg]41.47' W. long. (R ``2KR'' Whistle, 
Kittery Point)
43[deg]02.55' N. lat., 70[deg]43.33' W. long. (Odiornes Pt., 
Portsmouth, New Hampshire)

New Hampshire

    New Hampshire state waters are exempt from the minimum number of 
traps per trawl requirement in paragraph (c)(2)(iii) of this section. 
Harbor waters landward of the following lines are exempt from all the 
regulations in this section.

A line from 42[deg]53.691' N. lat., 70[deg]48.516' W. long. to 
42[deg]53.516' N. lat., 70[deg]48.748' W. long. (Hampton Harbor)
A line from 42[deg]59.986' N. lat., 70[deg]44.654' W. long. to 
42[deg]59.956' N., 70[deg]44.737' W. long. (Rye Harbor)

Rhode Island

A line from 41[deg]22.441' N. lat., 71[deg]30.781' W. long. to 
41[deg]22.447' N. lat., 71[deg]30.893' W. long. (Pt. Judith Pond 
Inlet)
A line from 41[deg]21.310' N. lat., 71[deg]38.300' W. long. to 
41[deg]21.300' N. lat., 71[deg]38.330' W. long. (Ninigret Pond 
Inlet)
A line from 41[deg]19.875' N. lat., 71[deg]43.061' W. long. to 
41[deg]19.879' N. lat., 71[deg]43.115' W. long. (Quonochontaug Pond 
Inlet)
A line from 41[deg]19.660' N. lat., 71[deg]45.750' W. long. to 
41[deg]19.660' N. lat., 71[deg]45.780' W. long. (Weekapaug Pond 
Inlet)

New York

A line that follows the territorial sea baseline through Block 
Island Sound (Watch Hill Point, RI, to Montauk Point, NY)

South Carolina

A line from 32[deg]34.717' N. lat., 80[deg]08.565' W. long. to 
32[deg]34.686' N. lat., 80[deg]08.642' W. long. (Captain Sams Inlet)

    (4) Sinking groundline exemption. The fisheries regulated under 
this section are exempt from the requirement to have groundlines 
composed of sinking line if their groundline is at a depth equal to or 
greater than 280 fathoms (1,680 ft or 512.1 m).
    (5) Net panel weak link and anchoring exemption. The anchored 
gillnet fisheries regulated under this section are exempt from the 
requirement to install weak links in the net panel and anchor each end 
of the net string if the float-line is at a depth equal to or greater 
than 280 fathoms (1,680 ft or 512.1 m).
    (6) Island buffer. Those fishing in waters within \1/4\ mile of 
Monhegan Island, Maine; Matinicus, Maine; and Ragged Island, Maine are 
exempt from the minimum number of traps per trawl requirement in 
paragraph (c)(2)(iii) of this section.
    (b) Gear marking requirements--(1) Specified areas. The following 
areas are specified for gear marking purposes: Northern Inshore State 
Trap/Pot Waters, Cape Cod Bay Restricted Area, Massachusetts Restricted 
Area, Stellwagen Bank/Jeffreys Ledge Restricted Area, Northern 
Nearshore Trap/Pot Waters Area, Great South Channel Restricted Trap/Pot 
Area, Great

[[Page 36612]]

South Channel Restricted Gillnet Area, Great South Channel Sliver 
Restricted Area, Southern Nearshore Trap/Pot Waters Area, Offshore 
Trap/Pot Waters Area, Other Northeast Gillnet Waters Area, Mid/South 
Atlantic Gillnet Waters Area, Other Southeast Gillnet Waters Area, 
Southeast U.S. Restricted Areas, and Southeast U.S. Monitoring Area.
    (2) Markings. All specified gear in specified areas must be marked 
with the color code shown in paragraph (b)(3) of this section. The 
color of the color code must be permanently marked on or along the line 
or lines specified below under paragraphs (b)(2)(i) and (ii) of this 
section. Each color mark of the color codes must be clearly visible 
when the gear is hauled or removed from the water. The rope must be 
marked at least three times (top, middle, bottom) and each mark must 
total 12-inch (30.5 cm) in length. If the mark consists of two colors 
then each color mark may be 6-inch (15.25 cm) for a total mark of 12-
inch (30.5 cm). If the color of the rope is the same as or similar to a 
color code, then a white mark may be substituted for that color code. 
In marking or affixing the color code, the line may be dyed, painted, 
or marked with thin colored whipping line, thin colored plastic, or 
heat-shrink tubing, or other material; or a thin line may be woven into 
or through the line; or the line may be marked as approved in writing 
by the Assistant Administrator. A brochure illustrating the techniques 
for marking gear is available from the Regional Administrator, NMFS, 
Greater Atlantic Region upon request.
    (i) Buoy line markings. All buoy lines of shark gillnet gear in the 
Southeast U.S. Restricted Area S, Southeast U.S. Monitoring Area and 
Other Southeast Gillnet Waters, greater than 4 feet (1.22 m) long must 
be marked within 2 feet (0.6 m) of the top of the buoy line (closest to 
the surface), midway along the length of the buoy line, and within 2 
feet (0.6 m) of the bottom of the buoy line.
    (ii) Net panel markings. Shark gillnet gear net panels in the 
Southeast U.S. Restricted Area S, Southeast U.S. Monitoring Area and 
Other Southeast Gillnet Waters is required to be marked. The net panel 
must be marked along both the floatline and the leadline at least once 
every 100 yards (91.4 m).
    (iii) Surface buoy markings. Trap/pot and gillnet gear regulated 
under this section must mark all surface buoys to identify the vessel 
or fishery with one of the following: The owner's motorboat 
registration number, the owner's U.S. vessel documentation number, the 
federal commercial fishing permit number, or whatever positive 
identification marking is required by the vessel's home-port state. 
When marking of surface buoys is not already required by state or 
federal regulations, the letters and numbers used to mark the gear to 
identify the vessel or fishery must be at least 1 inch (2.5 cm) in 
height in block letters or arabic numbers in a color that contrasts 
with the background color of the buoy. A brochure illustrating the 
techniques for marking gear is available from the Regional 
Administrator, NMFS, Greater Atlantic Region upon request.
    (3) Color code. Gear must be marked with the appropriate colors to 
designate gear types and areas as follows:

                            Color Code Scheme
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Plan management area                         Color
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Trap/Pot Gear
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Massachusetts Restricted Area.............  Red.
Northern Nearshore........................  Red.
Northern Inshore State....................  Red.
Stellwagen Bank/Jeffreys Ledge Restricted   Red.
 Area.
Great South Channel Restricted Area         Red.
 overlapping with LMA 2 and/or Outer Cape.
Southern Nearshore........................  Orange.
Southeast Restricted Area North (State      Blue and Orange.
 Waters).
Southeast Restricted Area North (Federal    Green and Orange.
 Waters).
Offshore..................................  Black.
Great South Channel Restricted Area         Black.
 overlapping with LMA 2/3 and/or LMA 3.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Gillnet excluding shark gillnet
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cape Cod Bay Restricted Area..............  Green.
Stellwagen Bank/Jeffreys Ledge Restricted   Green.
 Area.
Great South Channel Restricted Area.......  Green.
Great South Channel Restricted Sliver Area  Green.
Other Northeast Gillnet Waters............  Green.
Mid/South Atlantic Gillnet Waters.........  Blue.
Southeast US Restricted Area South........  Yellow.
Other Southeast Gillnet Waters............  Yellow.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Shark Gillnet (with webbing of 5'' or greater)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Southeast US Restricted Area South........  Green and Blue.
Southeast Monitoring Area.................  Green and Blue.
Other Southeast Waters....................  Green and Blue.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (c) Restrictions applicable to trap/pot gear in regulated waters--
(1) Universal trap/pot gear requirements. In addition to the gear 
marking requirements listed in paragraph (b) and the area-specific 
measures listed in paragraphs (c)(2) through (10) of this section, all 
trap/pot gear in regulated waters, including the Northern Inshore State 
Trap/Pot Waters Area, must comply with the universal gear requirements 
listed below.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Fishermen are also encouraged to maintain their buoy lines 
to be as knot-free as possible. Splices are considered to be less of 
an entanglement threat and are thus preferable to knots.

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

[[Page 36613]]

    (i) No buoy line floating at the surface. No person or vessel may 
fish with trap/pot gear that has any portion of the buoy line floating 
at the surface at any time when the buoy line is directly connected to 
the gear at the ocean bottom. If more than one buoy is attached to a 
single buoy line or if a high flyer and a buoy are used together on a 
single buoy line, floating line may be used between these objects.
    (ii) No wet storage of gear. Trap/pot gear must be hauled out of 
the water at least once every 30 days.
    (iii) Groundlines. All groundlines must be composed entirely of 
sinking line. The attachment of buoys, toggles, or other floatation 
devices to groundlines is prohibited.
    (2) Area specific gear requirements. Trap/pot gear must be set 
according to the requirements outlined below and in the table in 
paragraph (c)(2)(iii).
    (i) Single traps and multiple-trap trawls. All traps must be set 
according to the configuration outlined in the table in paragraph 
(c)(2)(iii).
    (ii) Buoy line weak links. All buoys, flotation devices and/or 
weights (except traps/pots, anchors, and leadline woven into the buoy 
line), such as surface buoys, high flyers, sub-surface buoys, toggles, 
window weights, etc., must be attached to the buoy line with a weak 
link placed as close to each individual buoy, flotation device and/or 
weight as operationally feasible and that meets the following 
specifications:
    (A) The breaking strength of the weak links must not exceed the 
breaking strength listed in paragraph (c)(2)(iii) of this section for a 
specified management area.
    (B) The weak link must be chosen from the following list approved 
by NMFS: Swivels, plastic weak links, rope of appropriate breaking 
strength, hog rings, rope stapled to a buoy stick, or other materials 
or devices approved in writing by the Assistant Administrator. A 
brochure illustrating the techniques for making weak links is available 
from the Regional Administrator, NMFS, Greater Atlantic Region upon 
request.
    (C) Weak links must break cleanly leaving behind the bitter end of 
the line. The bitter end of the line must be free of any knots when the 
weak link breaks. Splices are not considered to be knots for the 
purposes of this provision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The pocket waters and 6-mile line as defined in paragraphs 
(a)(2)(ii) and (a)(2)(iii) of this section.
    \3\ See Sec.  229.32 (f)(1) for description of area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (iii) Table of Area Specific Gear Requirements.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Minimum 
             Location                        Mgmt area               traps/trawl           Weak link strength
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ME State and Pocket Waters \2\....  Northern Inshore State....  2 (1 endline)........  <=600 lbs.
ME Zones A-G (3-6 miles) \2\......  Northern Nearshore........  3 (1 endline)........  <=600 lbs.
ME Zones A-C (6-12 miles) \2\.....  Northern Nearshore........  5 (1 endline)........  <=600 lbs.
ME Zones D-G (6-12 miles) \2\.....  Northern Nearshore........  10...................  <=600 lbs.
ME Zones A-E (12+ miles)..........  Northern Nearshore and      15...................  <=600 lbs (<=1,500 lbs in
                                     Offshore.                                          offshore, 2,000 lbs if
                                                                                        red crab trap/pot)
ME Zones F-G (12+ miles)..........  Northern Nearshore and      15 (Mar 1-Oct 31)....  <=600 lbs (<=1,500 lbs in
                                     Offshore.                  20 (Nov 1-Feb 28/29).   offshore, 2,000 lbs if
                                                                                        red crab trap/pot).
MA State Waters...................  Northern Inshore State and  2 (1 endline)........  <=600 lbs.
                                     Massachusetts Restricted
                                     Area.
NH State Waters...................  Northern Inshore State....  No minimum trap/trawl  <=600 lbs.
LMA 1 (3-12 miles)................  Northern Nearshore and      10...................  <=600 lbs.
                                     Massachusetts Restricted
                                     Area and Stellwagen Bank/
                                     Jeffreys Ledge Restricted
                                     Area.
LMA 1 (12+ miles).................  Northern Nearshore........  20...................  <=600 lbs.
LMA1/OC Overlap (0-3 miles).......  Northern Inshore State and  2 (1 endline)........  <=600 lbs.
                                     Massachusetts Restricted
                                     Area.
OC (0-3 miles)....................  Northern Inshore State and  2 (1 endline)........  <=600 lbs.
                                     Massachusetts Restricted
                                     Area.
OC (3-12 miles)...................  Northern Nearshore and      10...................  <=600 lbs.
                                     Massachusetts Restricted
                                     Area.
OC (12+ miles)....................  Northern Nearshore and      20...................  <=600 lbs.
                                     Great South Channel
                                     Restricted Area.
Rhode Island State Waters.........  Northern Inshore State....  2 (1 endline)........  <=600 lbs.
LMA 2 (3-12 miles)................  Northern Nearshore........  10...................  <=600 lbs.
LMA 2 (12 + miles)................  Northern Nearshore and      15...................  <=600 lbs.
                                     Great South Channel
                                     Restricted Area.
LMA 2/3 Overlap (12+ miles).......  Offshore and Great South    20...................  <=1,500 lbs (2,000 lbs if
                                     Channel Restricted Area.                           red crab trap/pot).
LMA 3 (12+ miles).................  Offshore waters North of    20...................  <=1,500 lbs (2,000 lbs if
                                     40[deg] and Great South                            red crab trap/pot).
                                     Channel Restricted Area.
LMA 4,5,6.........................  Southern Nearshore........  .....................  <=600 lbs.
FL State Waters...................  Southeast US Restricted     1....................  <=200 lbs.
                                     Area North \3\.
GA State Waters...................  Southeast US Restricted     1....................  <=600 lbs.
                                     Area North \3\.
SC State Waters...................  Southeast US Restricted     1....................  <=600 lbs.
                                     Area North \3\.
Federal Waters off FL, GA, SC.....  Southeast US Restricted     1....................  <=600 lbs.
                                     Area North \3\.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 36614]]

    (3) Massachusetts Restricted Area--(i) Area. The Massachusetts 
restricted area is bounded by the following point surrounding the 
shoreline of Cape Cod, Massachusetts.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Point                     N. lat.             W. long.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MRA1...........................  42[deg]12'           70[deg]30'
MRA2...........................  42[deg]30'           70[deg]30'
MRA3...........................  42[deg]30'           69[deg]45'
MRA4...........................  41[deg]40'           69[deg]45'
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (ii) Closure. From January 1 to April 30, it is prohibited to fish 
with, set, or possess trap/pot gear in this area unless stowed in 
accordance with Sec.  229.2.
    (iii) Area-specific gear or vessel requirements. From May 1 through 
December 31, no person or vessel may fish with or possess trap/pot gear 
in the Massachusetts Restricted Area unless that gear complies with the 
gear marking requirements specified in paragraph (b) of this section, 
the universal trap/pot gear requirements specified in paragraph (c)(1) 
of this section, and the area-specific requirements listed in paragraph 
(c)(2) of this section, or unless the gear is stowed as specified in 
Sec.  229.2.
    (4) Great South Channel Restricted Trap/Pot Area--(i) Area. The 
Great South Channel Restricted Trap/Pot Area consists of the area 
bounded by the following points.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Point                     N. Lat.             W. Long.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GSC1...........................  41[deg]40'           69[deg]45'
GSC2...........................  41[deg]0'            69[deg]05'
GSC3...........................  41[deg]38'           68[deg]13'
GSC4...........................  42[deg]10'           68[deg]31'
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (ii) Closure. From April 1 through June 30, it is prohibited to 
fish with, set, or possess trap/pot gear in this area unless stowed in 
accordance with Sec.  229.2.
    (iii) Area-specific gear or vessel requirements. From July 1 
through March 31, no person or vessel may fish with or possess trap/pot 
gear in the Great South Channel Restricted Trap/Pot Area unless that 
gear complies with the gear marking requirements specified in paragraph 
(b) of this section, the universal trap/pot gear requirements specified 
in paragraph (c)(1) of this section, and the area-specific requirements 
listed in (c)(2) of this section, or unless the gear is stowed as 
specified in Sec.  229.2.
    (5) Stellwagen Bank/Jeffreys Ledge Restricted Area--(i) Area. The 
Stellwagen Bank/Jeffreys Ledge Restricted Area includes all Federal 
waters of the Gulf of Maine, except those designated as the 
Massachusetts Restricted Area in paragraph (c)(3) of this section, that 
lie south of 43[deg]15' N. lat. and west of 70[deg]00' W. long.
    (ii) Year round area-specific gear or vessel requirements. No 
person or vessel may fish with or possess trap/pot gear in the 
Stellwagen Bank/Jeffreys Ledge Restricted Area unless that gear 
complies with the gear marking requirements specified in paragraph (b) 
of this section, the universal trap/pot gear requirements specified in 
paragraph (c)(1) of this section, and the area-specific requirements 
listed in paragraph (c)(2) of this section, or unless the gear is 
stowed as specified in Sec.  229.2.
    (6) Offshore Trap/Pot \4\ Waters Area--(i) Area. The Offshore Trap/
Pot Waters Area includes all Federal waters of the EEZ Offshore 
Management Area 3, including the area known as the Area 2/3 Overlap and 
Area 3/5 Overlap as defined in the American Lobster Fishery regulations 
at Sec.  697.18 of this title, with the exception of the Great South 
Channel Restricted Trap/Pot Area and Southeast Restricted Area, and 
extending south along the 100-fathom (600-ft or 182.9-m) depth contour 
from 35[deg]14' N. lat. south to 27[deg]51' N. lat., and east to the 
eastern edge of the EEZ.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Fishermen using red crab trap/pot gear should refer to Sec.  
229.32(c)(10) for the restrictions applicable to red crab trap/pot 
fishery.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (ii) Year-round area-specific gear or vessel requirements. No 
person or vessel may fish with or possess trap/pot gear in the Offshore 
Trap/Pot Waters Area that overlaps an area from the U.S./Canada border 
south to a straight line from 41[deg]18.2' N. lat., 71[deg]51.5' W. 
long. (Watch Hill Point, RI) south to 40[deg]00' N. lat., and then east 
to the eastern edge of the EEZ, unless that gear complies with the gear 
marking requirements specified in paragraph (b) of this section, the 
universal trap/pot gear requirements specified in paragraph (c)(1) of 
this section, and the area-specific requirements listed in (c)(2) of 
this section, or unless the gear is stowed as specified in Sec.  229.2.
    (iii) Seasonal area-specific gear or vessel requirements. From 
September 1 to May 31, no person or vessel may fish with or possess 
trap/pot gear in the Offshore Trap/Pot Waters Area that overlaps an 
area bounded on the north by a straight line from 41[deg]18.2' N. lat., 
71[deg]51.5' W. long. (Watch Hill Point, RI) south to 40[deg]00' N. 
lat. and then east to the eastern edge of the EEZ, and bounded on the 
south by a line at 32[deg]00' N. lat., and east to the eastern edge of 
the EEZ, unless that gear complies with the gear marking requirements 
specified in paragraph (b) of this section, the universal trap/pot gear 
requirements specified in paragraph (c)(1) of this section, and area-
specific requirements in (c)(2) or unless the gear is stowed as 
specified in Sec.  229.2.
    (iv) Seasonal area-specific gear or vessel requirements. From 
November 15 to April 15, no person or vessel may fish with or possess 
trap/pot gear in the Offshore Trap/Pot Waters Area that overlaps an 
area from 32[deg]00' N. lat. south to 29[deg]00' N. lat. and east to 
the eastern edge of the EEZ, unless that gear complies with the gear 
marking requirements specified in paragraph (b) of this section, the 
universal trap/pot gear requirements specified in paragraph (c)(1) of 
this section, the area-specific requirements in paragraph (c)(2) of 
this section or unless the gear is stowed as specified in Sec.  229.2.
    (v) Seasonal area-specific gear or vessel requirements. From 
December 1 to March 31, no person or vessel may fish with or possess 
trap/pot gear in the Offshore Trap/Pot Waters Area that overlaps an 
area from 29[deg]00' N. lat. south to 27[deg]51' N. lat. and east to 
the eastern edge of the EEZ, unless that gear complies with the gear 
marking requirements specified in paragraph (b) of this section, the 
universal trap/pot gear requirements specified in paragraph (c)(1) of 
this section, the area-specific requirements in paragraph (c)(2) in 
this section, or unless the gear is stowed as specified in Sec.  229.2.
    (vi) [Reserved]
    (7) Northern Inshore State Trap/Pot Waters Area--(i) Area. The 
Northern Inshore State Trap/Pot Waters Area includes the state waters 
of Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and Maine, with the exception of 
Massachusetts Restricted Area and those waters exempted under paragraph 
(a)(3) of this section. Federal waters west of 70[deg]00' N. lat. in 
Nantucket Sound are also included in the Northern Inshore State Trap/
Pot Waters Area.
    (ii) Year-round area-specific gear or vessel requirements. No 
person or vessel may fish with or possess trap/pot gear in the Northern 
Inshore State Trap/Pot Waters Area unless that gear complies with the 
gear marking requirements specified in paragraph (b) of this section, 
the universal trap/pot gear requirements specified in paragraph (c)(1) 
of this section, the area-specific requirements in (c)(2) of this 
section or unless the gear is stowed as specified in Sec.  229.2.
    (8) Northern Nearshore Trap/Pot Waters Area--(i) Area. The Northern 
Nearshore Trap/Pot Waters Area includes all Federal waters of EEZ 
Nearshore Management Area 1, Area 2, and the Outer Cape Lobster 
Management Area (as defined in the

[[Page 36615]]

American Lobster Fishery regulations at 50 CFR 697.18 of this title), 
with the exception of the Great South Channel Restricted Trap/Pot Area, 
Massachusetts Restricted Area, Stellwagen Bank/Jeffreys Ledge 
Restricted Area, and Federal waters west of 70[deg]00' N. lat. in 
Nantucket Sound (included in the Northern Inshore State Trap/Pot Waters 
Area) and those waters exempted under paragraph (a)(3) of this section.
    (ii) Year-round area-specific gear or vessel requirements. No 
person or vessel may fish with or possess trap/pot gear in the Northern 
Nearshore Trap/Pot Waters Area unless that gear complies with the gear 
marking requirements specified in paragraph (b) of this section, the 
universal trap/pot gear requirements specified in paragraph (c)(1) of 
this section, the area-specific requirements in paragraph (c)(2) of 
this section, or unless the gear is stowed as specified in Sec.  229.2.
    (9) Southern Nearshore \5\ Trap/Pot Waters Area--(i) Area. The 
Southern Nearshore Trap/Pot Waters Area includes all state and Federal 
waters which fall within EEZ Nearshore Management Area 4, EEZ Nearshore 
Management Area 5, and EEZ Nearshore Management Area 6 (as defined in 
the American Lobster Fishery regulations in 50 CFR 697.18, and 
excluding the Area 3/5 Overlap), and inside the 100-fathom (600-ft or 
182.9-m) depth contour line from 35[deg]30' N. lat. south to 27[deg]51' 
N. lat. and extending inshore to the shoreline or exemption line, with 
the exception of those waters exempted under paragraph (a)(3) of this 
section and those waters in the Southeast Restricted Area defined in 
paragraph (f)(1) of this section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Fishermen using red crab trap/pot gear should refer to Sec.  
229.32(c)(10) for the restrictions applicable to red crab trap/pot 
fishery.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (ii) Year-round area-specific gear or vessel requirements. No 
person or vessel may fish with or possess trap/pot gear in the Southern 
Nearshore Trap/Pot Waters Area that is east of a straight line from 
41[deg]18.2' N. lat., 71[deg]51.5' W. long. (Watch Hill Point, RI) 
south to 40[deg]00' N. lat., unless that gear complies with the gear 
marking requirements specified in paragraph (b) of this section, the 
universal trap/pot gear requirements specified in paragraph (c)(1) of 
this section, the area-specific requirements in paragraph (c)(2) of 
this section or unless the gear is stowed as specified in Sec.  229.2.
    (iii) Seasonal area-specific gear or vessel requirements. From 
September 1 to May 31, no person or vessel may fish with or possess 
trap/pot gear in the Southern Nearshore Trap/Pot Waters Area that 
overlaps an area bounded on the north by a straight line from 
41[deg]18.2' N. lat., 71[deg]51.5' W. long. (Watch Hill Point, RI) 
south to 40[deg]00' N. lat. and then east to the eastern edge of the 
EEZ, and bounded on the south by 32[deg]00' N. lat., and east to the 
eastern edge of the EEZ, unless that gear complies with the gear 
marking requirements specified in paragraph (b) of this section, the 
universal trap/pot gear requirements in paragraph (c)(1) of this 
section, the area-specific requirements in paragraph (c)(2) of this 
section or unless the gear is stowed as specified in Sec.  229.2.
    (iv) Seasonal area-specific gear or vessel requirements. From 
November 15 to April 15, no person or vessel may fish with or possess 
trap/pot gear in the Southern Nearshore Trap/Pot Waters Area that 
overlaps an area from 32[deg]00' N. lat. south to 29[deg]00' N. lat. 
and east to the eastern edge of the EEZ, unless that gear complies with 
the gear marking requirements specified in paragraph (b) of this 
section, the universal trap/pot gear requirements specified in 
paragraph (c)(1) of this section, the area-specific requirements in 
paragraph (c)(2) of this section or unless the gear is stowed as 
specified in Sec.  229.2.
    (v) Seasonal area-specific gear or vessel requirements. From 
December 1 to March 31, no person or vessel may fish with or possess 
trap/pot gear in the Southern Nearshore Trap/Pot Waters Area that 
overlaps an area from 29[deg]00' N. lat. south to 27[deg]51' N. lat. 
and east to the eastern edge of the EEZ, unless that gear complies with 
the gear marking requirements specified in paragraph (b) of this 
section, the universal trap/pot gear requirements specified in 
paragraph (c)(1) of this section, the area-specific requirements in 
(c)(2) of this section or unless the gear is stowed as specified in 
Sec.  229.2.
    (vi) [Reserved]
    (10) Restrictions applicable to the red crab trap/pot fishery--(i) 
Area. The red crab trap/pot fishery is regulated in the waters 
identified in paragraphs (c)(6)(i) and (c)(9)(i) of this section.
    (ii) Year-round area-specific gear or vessel requirements. No 
person or vessel may fish with or possess red crab trap/pot gear in the 
area identified in paragraph (c)(10)(i) of this section that overlaps 
an area from the U.S./Canada border south to a straight line from 
41[deg] 18.2' N. lat., 71[deg]51.5' W. long. (Watch Hill Point, RI) 
south to 40[deg]00' N. lat., and then east to the eastern edge of the 
EEZ, unless that gear complies with the gear marking requirements 
specified in paragraph (b) of this section, the universal trap/pot gear 
requirements specified in paragraph (c)(1) of this section, the area-
specific requirements in paragraph (c)(2) of this section or unless the 
gear is stowed as specified in Sec.  229.2.
    (iii) Seasonal area-specific gear or vessel requirements. From 
September 1 to May 31, no person or vessel may fish with or possess red 
crab trap/pot gear in the area identified in paragraph (c)(10)(i) of 
this section that overlaps an area bounded on the north by a straight 
line from 41[deg]18.2' N. lat., 71[deg]51.5' W. long. (Watch Hill 
Point, RI) south to 40[deg]00' N. lat. and then east to the eastern 
edge of the EEZ, and bounded on the south by a line at 32[deg]00' N. 
lat., and east to the eastern edge of the EEZ, unless that gear 
complies with the gear marking requirements specified in paragraph (b) 
of this section, the universal trap/pot gear requirements specified in 
paragraph (c)(1) of this section, the area-specific requirements in 
(c)(2) of this section or unless the gear is stowed as specified in 
Sec.  229.2.
    (iv) Seasonal area-specific gear or vessel requirements. From 
November 15 to April 15, no person or vessel may fish with or possess 
red crab trap/pot gear in the area identified in paragraph (c)(11)(i) 
of this section that overlaps an area from 32[deg]00' N. lat. south to 
29[deg]00' N. lat. and east to the eastern edge of the EEZ, unless that 
gear complies with the gear marking requirements specified in paragraph 
(b) of this section, the universal trap/pot gear requirements specified 
in paragraph (c)(1) of this section, the area-specific requirements in 
paragraph (c)(2) of this section or unless the gear is stowed as 
specified in Sec.  229.2.
    (v) Seasonal area-specific gear or vessel requirements. From 
December 1 to March 31, no person or vessel may fish with or possess 
red crab trap/pot gear in the area identified in paragraph (c)(11)(i) 
of this section that overlaps an area from 29[deg]00' N. lat. south to 
27[deg]51' N. lat. and east to the eastern edge of the EEZ, unless that 
gear complies with the gear marking requirements specified in paragraph 
(b) of this section, the universal trap/pot gear requirements specified 
in paragraph (c)(1) of this section, the area-specific requirements in 
(c)(2) of this section or unless the gear is stowed as specified in 
Sec.  229.2.
    (vi) [Reserved]
    (d) Restrictions applicable to anchored gillnet gear--(1) Universal 
anchored gillnet gear requirements. In addition to the area-specific 
measures listed in paragraphs (d)(3) through (d)(8) of this section, 
all anchored gillnet gear in regulated waters must comply with

[[Page 36616]]

the universal gear requirements listed below.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Fishermen are also encouraged to maintain their buoy lines 
to be as knot-free as possible. Splices are considered to be less of 
an entanglement threat and are thus preferable to knots.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (i) No buoy line floating at the surface. No person or vessel may 
fish with anchored gillnet gear that has any portion of the buoy line 
floating at the surface at any time when the buoy line is directly 
connected to the gear at the ocean bottom. If more than one buoy is 
attached to a single buoy line or if a high flyer and a buoy are used 
together on a single buoy line, sinking and/or neutrally buoyant line 
must be used between these objects.
    (ii) No wet storage of gear. Anchored gillnet gear must be hauled 
out of the water at least once every 30 days.
    (iii) Groundlines. All groundlines must be composed entirely of 
sinking line unless exempted from this requirement under paragraph 
(a)(4) of this section. The attachment of buoys, toggles, or other 
floatation devices to groundlines is prohibited.
    (2) Area specific gear restrictions. No person or vessel may fish 
with or possess anchored gillnet gear in Areas referenced in paragraphs 
(d)(3) through (d)(8) of this section, unless that gear complies with 
the gear requirements specified in paragraph (d)(1) of this section, 
and the area specific requirements listed below, or unless the gear is 
stowed as specified in Sec.  229.2.
    (i) Buoy line weak links. All buoys, flotation devices and/or 
weights (except gillnets, anchors, and leadline woven into the buoy 
line), such as surface buoys, high flyers, sub-surface buoys, toggles, 
window weights, etc., must be attached to the buoy line with a weak 
link placed as close to each individual buoy, flotation device and/or 
weight as operationally feasible and that meets the following 
specifications:
    (A) The weak link must be chosen from the following list approved 
by NMFS: Swivels, plastic weak links, rope of appropriate breaking 
strength, hog rings, rope stapled to a buoy stick, or other materials 
or devices approved in writing by the Assistant Administrator. A 
brochure illustrating the techniques for making weak links is available 
from the Regional Administrator, NMFS, Greater Atlantic Region upon 
request.
    (B) The breaking strength of the weak links must not exceed 1,100 
lb (499.0 kg).
    (C) Weak links must break cleanly leaving behind the bitter end of 
the line. The bitter end of the line must be free of any knots when the 
weak link breaks. Splices are not considered to be knots for the 
purposes of this provision.
    (ii) Net panel weak links. The breaking strength of each weak link 
must not exceed 1,100 lb (499.0 kg). The weak link requirements apply 
to all variations in panel size. All net panels in a string must 
contain weak links that meet one of the following two configurations 
unless exempted from this requirement under paragraph (a)(5) of this 
section:
    (A) Configuration 1. (1) The weak link must be chosen from the 
following list approved by NMFS: Plastic weak links or rope of 
appropriate breaking strength. If rope of appropriate breaking strength 
is used throughout the floatline or as the up and down line, or if no 
up and down line is present, then individual weak links are not 
required on the floatline or up and down line. A brochure illustrating 
the techniques for making weak links is available from the Regional 
Administrator, NMFS, Greater Atlantic Region upon request; and
    (2) One weak link must be placed in the center of each of the up 
and down lines at both ends of the net panel; and
    (3) One weak link must be placed as close as possible to each end 
of the net panels on the floatline; and
    (4) For net panels of 50 fathoms (300 ft or 91.4 m) or less in 
length, one weak link must be placed in the center of the floatline; or
    (5) For net panels greater than 50 fathoms (300 ft or 91.4 m) in 
length, one weak link must be placed at least every 25 fathoms (150 ft 
or 45.7 m) along the floatline.
    (B) Configuration 2. (1) The weak link must be chosen from the 
following list approved by NMFS: Plastic weak links or rope of 
appropriate breaking strength. If rope of appropriate breaking strength 
is used throughout the floatline or as the up and down line, or if no 
up and down line is present, then individual weak links are not 
required on the floatline or up and down line. A brochure illustrating 
the techniques for making weak links is available from the Regional 
Administrator, NMFS, Greater Atlantic Region upon request; and
    (2) One weak link must be placed in the center of each of the up 
and down lines at both ends of the net panel; and
    (3) One weak link must be placed between the floatline tie loops 
between net panels; and
    (4) One weak link must be placed where the floatline tie loops 
attaches to the bridle, buoy line, or groundline at the end of a net 
string; and
    (5) For net panels of 50 fathoms (300 ft or 91.4 m) or less in 
length, one weak link must be placed in the center of the floatline; or
    (6) For net panels greater than 50 fathoms (300 ft or 91.4 m) in 
length, one weak link must be placed at least every 25 fathoms (150 ft 
or 45.7 m) along the floatline.
    (iii) Anchoring systems. All anchored gillnets, regardless of the 
number of net panels, must be secured at each end of the net string 
with a burying anchor (an anchor that holds to the ocean bottom through 
the use of a fluke, spade, plow, or pick) having the holding capacity 
equal to or greater than a 22-lb (10.0-kg) Danforth-style anchor unless 
exempted from this requirement under paragraph (a)(5) of this section. 
Dead weights do not meet this requirement. A brochure illustrating the 
techniques for rigging anchoring systems is available from the Regional 
Administrator, NMFS, Greater Atlantic Region.
    (3) Cape Cod Bay Restricted Area--(i) Area. The Cape Cod Bay 
restricted area is bounded by the following points and on the south and 
east by the interior shoreline of Cape Cod, Massachusetts.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Point                     N. lat.             W. long.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CCB1...........................  41[deg]40'           69[deg]45'
CCB2...........................  42[deg]30'           69[deg]45'
CCB3...........................  42[deg]30'           70[deg]30'
CCB4...........................  42[deg]12'           70[deg]30'
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (ii) Closure. During January 1 through May 15 of each year, no 
person or vessel may fish with or possess anchored gillnet gear in the 
Cape Cod Bay Restricted Area unless the Assistant Administrator 
specifies gear restrictions or alternative fishing practices in 
accordance with paragraph (i) of this section and the gear or practices 
comply with those specifications, or unless the gear is stowed as 
specified in Sec.  229.2. The Assistant Administrator may waive this 
closure for the remaining portion of the winter restricted period in 
any year through a notification in the Federal Register if NMFS 
determines that right whales have left the restricted area and are 
unlikely to return for the remainder of the season.
    (iii) Area-specific gear or vessel requirements. From May 16 
through December 31 of each year, no person or vessel may fish with or 
possess anchored gillnet gear in the Cape Cod Bay Restricted Area 
unless that gear complies with the gear marking requirements specified 
in paragraph (b) of this section, the universal anchored gillnet gear 
requirements specified in paragraph (d)(1) of this section, and the 
area-specific requirements listed in paragraph (d)(2) of this section, 
or unless the gear is stowed as specified in Sec.  229.2.
    (4) Great South Channel Restricted Gillnet Area--(i) Area. The 
Great South Channel Restricted Gillnet Area consists

[[Page 36617]]

of the area bounded by lines connecting the following four points:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Point                     N. lat.             W. long.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GSC1...........................  41[deg]02.2'         69[deg]02'
GSC2...........................  41[deg]43.5'         69[deg]36.3'
GSC3...........................  42[deg]10'           68[deg]31'
GSC4...........................  41[deg]38'           68[deg]13'
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (ii) Closure. From April 1 through June 30 of each year, no person 
or vessel may fish with or possess anchored gillnet gear in the Great 
South Channel Restricted Gillnet Area unless the Assistant 
Administrator specifies gear restrictions or alternative fishing 
practices in accordance with paragraph (i) of this section and the gear 
or practices comply with those specifications, or unless the gear is 
stowed as specified in Sec.  229.2.
    (iii) Area-specific gear or vessel requirements. From July 1 
through March 31 of each year, no person or vessel may fish with or 
possess anchored gillnet gear in the Great South Channel Restricted 
Gillnet Area unless that gear complies with the gear marking 
requirements specified in paragraph (b) of this section, the universal 
anchored gillnet gear requirements specified in paragraph (d)(1) of 
this section, and the area-specific requirements listed in paragraph 
(d)(2) of this section or unless the gear is stowed as specified in 
Sec.  229.2.
    (5) Great South Channel Sliver Restricted Area--(i) Area. The Great 
South Channel Sliver Restricted Area consists of the area bounded by 
lines connecting the following points:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Point                     N. lat.             W. long.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GSCRA1.........................  41[deg]02.2'         69[deg]02'
GSCRA2.........................  41[deg]43.5'         69[deg]36.3'
GSCRA3.........................  41[deg]40'           69[deg]45'
GSCRA4.........................  41[deg]00'           69[deg]05'
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (ii) Year-round area-specific gear or vessel requirements. No 
person or vessel may fish with or possess anchored gillnet gear in the 
Great South Channel Sliver Restricted Area unless that gear complies 
with the gear marking requirements specified in paragraph (b) of this 
section, the universal anchored gillnet gear requirements specified in 
paragraph (d)(1) of this section, and the area-specific requirements 
listed in paragraph (d)(2) of this section or unless the gear is stowed 
as specified in Sec.  229.2.
    (6) Stellwagen Bank/Jeffreys Ledge Restricted Area--(i) Area. The 
Stellwagen Bank/Jeffreys Ledge Restricted Area includes all Federal 
waters of the Gulf of Maine, except those designated as the Cape Cod 
Bay Restricted Area in paragraph (d)(3) of this section that lie south 
of 43[deg]15' N. lat. and west of 70[deg]00' W. long.
    (ii) Year-round area-specific gear or vessel requirements. No 
person or vessel may fish with or possess anchored gillnet gear in the 
Stellwagen Bank/Jeffreys Ledge Restricted Area unless that gear 
complies with the gear marking requirements specified in paragraph (b) 
of this section, the universal anchored gillnet gear requirements 
specified in paragraph (d)(1) of this section, and the area-specific 
requirements listed in paragraph (d)(2) of this section or unless the 
gear is stowed as specified in Sec.  229.2.
    (7) Other Northeast Gillnet Waters Area--(i) Area. The Other 
Northeast Gillnet Waters Area consists of all state and Federal U.S. 
waters from the U.S./Canada border to Long Island, NY, at 72[deg]30' W. 
long. south to 36[deg]33.03' N. lat. and east to the eastern edge of 
the EEZ, with the exception of the Cape Cod Bay Restricted Area, 
Stellwagen Bank/Jeffreys Ledge Restricted Area, Great South Channel 
Restricted Gillnet Area, Great South Channel Sliver Restricted Area, 
and exempted waters listed in paragraph (a)(3) of this section.
    (ii) Year-round area-specific gear or vessel requirements. No 
person or vessel may fish with or possess anchored gillnet gear in the 
Other Northeast Gillnet Waters Area that overlaps an area from the 
U.S./Canada border south to a straight line from 41[deg]18.2' N. lat., 
71[deg]51.5' W. long. (Watch Hill Point, RI) south to 40[deg]00' N. 
lat. and then east to the eastern edge of the EEZ, unless that gear 
complies with the gear marking requirements specified in paragraph (b) 
of this section, the universal anchored gillnet gear requirements 
specified in paragraph (d)(1) of this section, and the area-specific 
requirements listed in paragraph (d)(2) of this section or unless the 
gear is stowed as specified in Sec.  229.2.
    (iii) Seasonal area-specific gear or vessel requirements. From 
September 1 to May 31, no person or vessel may fish with or possess 
anchored gillnet gear in the Other Northeast Gillnet Waters Area that 
is south of a straight line from 41[deg]18.2' N. lat., 71 [deg]51.5' W. 
long. (Watch Hill Point, RI) south to 40[deg]00' N. lat. and then east 
to the eastern edge of the EEZ, unless that gear complies with the gear 
marking requirements specified in paragraph (b) of this section, the 
universal anchored gillnet gear requirements specified in paragraph 
(d)(1) of this section, and the area-specific requirements listed in 
paragraph (d)(2) of this section or unless the gear is stowed as 
specified in Sec.  229.2.
    (8) Mid/South Atlantic Gillnet Waters--(i) Area. The Mid/South 
Atlantic Gillnet Waters consists of all U.S. waters bounded on the 
north from Long Island, NY, at 72[deg]30' W. long. south to 
36[deg]33.03' N. lat. and east to the eastern edge of the EEZ, and 
bounded on the south by 32[deg]00' N. lat., and east to the eastern 
edge of the EEZ. When the Mid/South Atlantic Gillnet Waters Area 
overlaps the Southeast U.S. Restricted Area and its restricted period 
as specified in paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this section, then the 
closure and exemption for the Southeast U.S. Restricted Area as 
specified in paragraph (f)(2) of this section applies.
    (ii) Area-specific gear or vessel requirements. From September 1 
through May 31, no person or vessel may fish with or possess anchored 
gillnet gear in the Mid/South Atlantic Gillnet Waters unless that gear 
complies with the gear marking requirements specified in paragraph (b) 
of this section, the universal anchored gillnet gear requirements 
specified in paragraph (d)(1) of this section, and the following area-
specific requirements, or unless the gear is stowed as specified in 
Sec.  229.2. When the Mid/South Atlantic Gillnet Waters Area overlaps 
the Southeast U.S. Restricted Area and its restricted period as 
specified in paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this section, then the 
closure and exemption for the Southeast U.S. Restricted Area as 
specified in paragraph (f)(2) of this section applies.
    (A) Buoy line weak links. All buoys, flotation devices and/or 
weights (except gillnets, anchors, and leadline woven into the buoy 
line), such as surface buoys, high flyers, sub-surface buoys, toggles, 
window weights, etc., must be attached to the buoy line with a weak 
link placed as close to each individual buoy, flotation device and/or 
weight as operationally feasible and that meets the following 
specifications:
    (1) The weak link must be chosen from the following list approved 
by NMFS: Swivels, plastic weak links, rope of appropriate breaking 
strength, hog rings, rope stapled to a buoy stick, or other materials 
or devices approved in writing by the Assistant Administrator. A 
brochure illustrating the techniques for making weak links is available 
from the Regional Administrator, NMFS, Greater Atlantic Region upon 
request.
    (2) The breaking strength of the weak links must not exceed 1,100 
lb (499.0 kg).
    (3) Weak links must break cleanly leaving behind the bitter end of 
the line. The bitter end of the line must be free

[[Page 36618]]

of any knots when the weak link breaks. Splices are not considered to 
be knots for the purposes of this provision.
    (B) Net panel weak links. The weak link requirements apply to all 
variations in panel size. All net panels must contain weak links that 
meet the following specifications unless exempted under paragraph 
(a)(5) of this section:
    (1) The breaking strength for each of the weak links must not 
exceed 1,100 lb (499.0 kg).
    (2) The weak link must be chosen from the following list approved 
by NMFS: Plastic weak links or rope of appropriate breaking strength. 
If rope of appropriate breaking strength is used throughout the 
floatline then individual weak links are not required. A brochure 
illustrating the techniques for making weak links is available from the 
Regional Administrator, NMFS, Greater Atlantic Region upon request.
    (3) Weak links must be placed in the center of the floatline of 
each gillnet net panel up to and including 50 fathoms (300 ft or 91.4 
m) in length, or at least every 25 fathoms (150 ft or 45.7 m) along the 
floatline for longer panels.
    (C) Additional anchoring system and net panel weak link 
requirements. All gillnets must return to port with the vessel unless 
the gear meets the following specifications:
    (1) Anchoring systems. All anchored gillnets, regardless of the 
number of net panels, must be secured at each end of the net string 
with a burying anchor (an anchor that holds to the ocean bottom through 
the use of a fluke, spade, plow, or pick) having the holding capacity 
equal to or greater than a 22-lb (10.0-kg) Danforth-style anchor unless 
exempted under paragraph (a)(5) of this section. Dead weights do not 
meet this requirement. A brochure illustrating the techniques for 
rigging anchoring systems is available from the Regional Administrator, 
NMFS, Greater Atlantic Region upon request.
    (2) Net panel weak links. Net panel weak links must meet the 
specifications in this paragraph. The breaking strength of each weak 
link must not exceed 1,100 lb (499.0 kg). The weak link requirements 
apply to all variations in panel size. All net panels in a string must 
contain weak links that meet one of the following two configurations 
found in paragraph (d)(2)(ii)(A) or (d)(2)(ii)(B) of this section.
    (3) Additional provision for North Carolina. All gillnets set 300 
yards (274.3 m) or less from the shoreline in North Carolina must meet 
the anchoring system and net panel weak link requirements in paragraphs 
(d)(8)(ii)(C)(1) and (d)(8)(ii)(C)(2) of this section, or the 
following:
    (i) The entire net string must be less than 300 yards (274.3 m) 
from shore.
    (ii) The breaking strength of each weak link must not exceed 600 lb 
(272.2 kg). The weak link requirements apply to all variations in panel 
size.
    (iii) All net panels in a string must contain weak links that meet 
one of the following two configuration specifications found in 
paragraph (d)(2)(ii)(A) or (d)(2)(ii)(B) of this section.
    (iv) Regardless of the number of net panels, all anchored gillnets 
must be secured at the offshore end of the net string with a burying 
anchor (an anchor that holds to the ocean bottom through the use of a 
fluke, spade, plow, or pick) having a holding capacity equal to or 
greater than an 8-lb (3.6-kg) Danforth-style anchor, and at the inshore 
end of the net string with a dead weight equal to or greater than 31 lb 
(14.1 kg).
    (e) Restrictions applicable to drift gillnet gear--(1) Cape Cod Bay 
Restricted Area--(i) Area. The Cape Cod Bay Restricted Area is bounded 
by the following points and on the south and east by the interior 
shoreline of Cape Cod, Massachusetts.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Point                     N. Lat.             W. Long.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CCB1...........................  41[deg]40'           69[deg]45'
CCB2...........................  42[deg]30'           69[deg]45'
CCB3...........................  42[deg]30'           70[deg]30'
CCB4...........................  42[deg]12'           70[deg]30'
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (ii) Closure. From January 1 through April 30 of each year, no 
person or vessel may fish with or possess drift gillnet gear in the 
Cape Cod Bay Restricted Area unless the Assistant Administrator 
specifies gear restrictions or alternative fishing practices in 
accordance with paragraph (e)(1)(i) of this section and the gear or 
practices comply with those specifications, or unless the gear is 
stowed as specified in Sec.  229.2. The Assistant Administrator may 
waive this closure for the remaining portion of the winter restricted 
period in any year through a notification in the Federal Register if 
NMFS determines that right whales have left the restricted area and are 
unlikely to return for the remainder of the season.
    (iii) Area-specific gear or vessel requirements. From May 1 through 
December 31 of each year, no person or vessel may fish with or possess 
drift gillnet gear in the Cape Cod Bay Restricted Area unless that gear 
complies with the gear marking requirements specified in paragraph (b) 
of this section, or unless the gear is stowed as specified in Sec.  
229.2. Additionally, no person or vessel may fish with or possess drift 
gillnet gear at night in the Cape Cod Bay Restricted Area unless that 
gear is tended, or unless the gear is stowed as specified in Sec.  
229.2. During that time, all drift gillnet gear set by that vessel in 
the Cape Cod Bay Restricted Area must be removed from the water and 
stowed on board the vessel before a vessel returns to port.
    (2) Great South Channel Restricted Gillnet Area--(i) Area. The 
Great South Channel Restricted Gillnet Area consists of the area 
bounded by lines connecting the following four points:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Point                     N. Lat.             W. Long.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GSC1...........................  41[deg]02.2'         69[deg]02'
GSC2...........................  41[deg]43.5'         69[deg]36.3'
GSC3...........................  42[deg]10'           68[deg]31'
GSC4...........................  41[deg]38'           68[deg]13'
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (ii) Closure. From April 1 through June 30 of each year, no person 
or vessel may set, fish with or possess drift gillnet gear in the Great 
South Channel Restricted Gillnet Area unless the Assistant 
Administrator specifies gear restrictions or alternative fishing 
practices in accordance with paragraph (i) of this section and the gear 
or practices comply with those specifications, or unless the gear is 
stowed as specified in Sec.  229.2.
    (iii) Area-specific gear or vessel requirements. From July 1 
through March 31 of each year, no person or vessel may fish with or 
possess drift gillnet gear in the Great South Channel Restricted 
Gillnet Area unless that gear complies with the gear marking 
requirements specified in paragraph (b) of this section, or unless the 
gear is stowed as specified in Sec.  229.2. Additionally, no person or 
vessel may fish with or possess drift gillnet gear at night in the 
Great South Channel Restricted Gillnet Area unless that gear is tended, 
or unless the gear is stowed as specified in Sec.  229.2. During that 
time, all drift gillnet gear set by that vessel in the Great South 
Channel Restricted Gillnet Area must be removed from the water and 
stowed on board the vessel before a vessel returns to port.
    (3) Great South Channel Sliver Restricted Area--(i) Area. The Great 
South Channel Sliver Restricted Area consists of the area bounded by 
lines connecting the following points:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Point                     N. lat.             W. long.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GSCRA1.........................  41[deg]02.2'         69[deg]02'
GSCRA2.........................  41[deg]43.5'         69[deg]36.3'
GSCRA3.........................  41[deg]40'           69[deg]45'
GSCRA4.........................  41[deg]00'           69[deg]05'
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 36619]]

    (ii) Year-round area-specific gear or vessel requirements. No 
person or vessel may fish with or possess drift gillnet gear in the 
Great South Channel Sliver Restricted Gillnet Area unless that gear 
complies with the gear marking requirements specified in paragraph (b) 
of this section, or unless the gear is stowed as specified in Sec.  
229.2. Additionally, no person or vessel may fish with or possess drift 
gillnet gear at night in the Great South Channel Sliver Restricted Area 
unless that gear is tended, or unless the gear is stowed as specified 
in Sec.  229.2. During that time, all drift gillnet gear set by that 
vessel in the Great South Channel Sliver Restricted Area must be 
removed from the water and stowed on board the vessel before a vessel 
returns to port.
    (4) Stellwagen Bank/Jeffreys Ledge Restricted Area--(i) Area. The 
Stellwagen Bank/Jeffreys Ledge Restricted Area includes all Federal 
waters of the Gulf of Maine, except those designated the Cape Cod Bay 
Restricted Area in paragraph (e)(1), that lie south of 43[deg]15' N. 
lat. and west of 70[deg]00' W. long.
    (ii) Year-round area-specific gear or vessel requirements. No 
person or vessel may fish with or possess drift gillnet gear in the 
Stellwagen Bank/Jeffreys Ledge Restricted Area unless that gear 
complies with the gear marking requirements specified in paragraph (b) 
of this section, or unless the gear is stowed as specified in Sec.  
229.2. Additionally, no person or vessel may fish with or possess drift 
gillnet gear at night in the Stellwagen Bank/Jeffreys Ledge Area unless 
that gear is tended, or unless the gear is stowed as specified in Sec.  
229.2. During that time, all drift gillnet gear set by that vessel in 
the Stellwagen Bank/Jeffreys Ledge Restricted Area must be removed from 
the water and stowed on board the vessel before a vessel returns to 
port.
    (5) Other Northeast Gillnet Waters Area--(i) Area. The Other 
Northeast Gillnet Waters Area consists of all state and Federal U.S. 
waters from the U.S./Canada border to Long Island, NY, at 72[deg]30' W. 
long. south to 36[deg]33.03' N. lat. and east to the eastern edge of 
the EEZ, with the exception of the Cape Cod Bay Restricted Area, 
Stellwagen Bank/Jeffreys Ledge Restricted Area, Great South Channel 
Restricted Gillnet Area, Great South Channel Sliver Restricted Area, 
and exempted waters listed in paragraph (a)(3) of this section.
    (ii) Year-round area-specific gear or vessel requirements. No 
person or vessel may fish with or possess drift gillnet gear in the 
Other Northeast Gillnet Waters Area unless that gear complies with the 
gear marking requirements specified in paragraph (b) of this section, 
or unless the gear is stowed as specified in Sec.  229.2. Additionally, 
no person or vessel may fish with or possess drift gillnet gear at 
night in the Other Northeast Gillnet Waters Area unless that gear is 
tended, or unless the gear is stowed as specified in Sec.  229.2. 
During that time, all drift gillnet gear set by that vessel in the 
Other Northeast Gillnet Waters Area must be removed from the water and 
stowed on board the vessel before a vessel returns to port.
    (iii) Seasonal area-specific gear or vessel requirements. From 
September 1 to May 31, no person or vessel may fish with or possess 
drift gillnet gear in the Other Northeast Gillnet Waters Area that is 
south of a straight line from 41[deg]18.2' N. lat., 71[deg]51.5' W. 
long. (Watch Hill Point, RI) south to 40[deg]00' N. lat. and then east 
to the eastern edge of the EEZ, unless that gear complies with the gear 
marking requirements specified in paragraph (b) of this section, or 
unless the gear is stowed as specified in Sec.  229.2. Additionally, no 
person or vessel may fish with or possess drift gillnet gear at night 
in the Other Northeast Gillnet Waters Area unless that gear is tended, 
or unless the gear is stowed as specified in Sec.  229.2. During that 
time, all drift gillnet gear set by that vessel in the Other Northeast 
Gillnet Waters Area must be removed from the water and stowed on board 
the vessel before a vessel returns to port.
    (6) Mid/South Atlantic Gillnet Waters Area--(i) Area. The Mid/South 
Atlantic Gillnet Waters consists of all U.S. waters bounded on the 
north from Long Island, NY at 72[deg]30' W. long. south to 
36[deg]33.03' N. lat. and east to the eastern edge of the EEZ, and 
bounded on the south by 32[deg]00' N. lat., and east to the eastern 
edge of the EEZ. When the Mid/South Atlantic Gillnet Waters Area 
overlaps the Southeast U.S. Restricted Area and its restricted period 
as specified in paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this section, then the 
closure and exemption for the Southeast U.S. Restricted Area as 
specified in paragraph (f)(2) of this section applies.
    (ii) Area-specific gear or vessel requirements. From September 1 
through May 31, no person or vessel may fish with or possess drift 
gillnet gear at night in the Mid/South Atlantic Gillnet Waters Area 
unless:
    (A) The gear complies with gear marking requirements specified in 
paragraph (b) of this section;
    (B) The gear is tended; and
    (C) All gear is removed from the water and stowed on board the 
vessel before a vessel returns to port. No person or vessel may possess 
drift gillnet at night in the Mid/South Atlantic Gillnet Waters unless 
the gear is stowed as specified in Sec.  229.2. When the Mid/South 
Atlantic Gillnet Waters Area overlaps the Southeast U.S. Restricted 
Area and its restricted period as specified in paragraphs (f)(1) and 
(f)(2) of this section, then the closure and exemption for the 
Southeast U.S. Restricted Area as specified in paragraph (f)(2) of this 
section applies.
    (f) Restrictions applicable to the Southeast U.S. Restricted Area--
(1) Area. The Southeast U.S. Restricted Area consists of the area 
bounded by straight lines connecting the following points in the order 
stated from south to north:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Point                     N. lat.             W. long.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SERA1..........................  27[deg]51'           (\1\)
SERA2..........................  27[deg]51'           80[deg]00'
SERA3..........................  32[deg]00'           80[deg]00'
SERA4..........................  32[deg]36'           78[deg]52'
SERA5..........................  32[deg]51'           78[deg]36'
SERA6..........................  33[deg]15'           78[deg]24'
SERA7..........................  33[deg]27'           78[deg]04'
SERA8..........................  (\2\)                78[deg]33.9'
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Florida shoreline.
\2\ South Carolina shoreline.

    (i) Southeast U.S. Restricted Area N. The Southeast U.S. Restricted 
Area N consists of the Southeast U.S. Restricted Area from 29[deg]00' 
N. lat. northward.
    (ii) Southeast U.S. Restricted Area S. The Southeast U.S. 
Restricted Area S consists of the Southeast U.S. Restricted Area 
southward of 29[deg]00' N. lat.
    (2) Restricted periods, closure, and exemptions.
    (i) Restricted periods. The restricted period for the Southeast 
U.S. Restricted Area N is from November 15 through April 15, and the 
restricted period for the Southeast U.S. Restricted Area S is from 
December 1 through March 31.
    (ii) Closure for gillnets.
    (A) Except as provided under paragraph (f)(2)(v) of this section, 
fishing with or possessing gillnet in the Southeast U.S. Restricted 
Area N during the restricted period is prohibited.
    (B) Except as provided under paragraph (f)(2)(iii) of this section 
and (f)(2)(iv) of this section, fishing with gillnet in the Southeast 
U.S. Restricted Area S during the restricted period is prohibited.
    (iii) Exemption for Southeastern U.S. Atlantic shark gillnet 
fishery. Fishing with gillnet for sharks with webbing of 5 inches (12.7 
cm) or greater stretched mesh is exempt from the restrictions under 
paragraph (f)(2)(ii)(B) of this section if:
    (A) The gillnet is deployed so that it encloses an area of water;
    (B) A valid commercial directed shark limited access permit has 
been issued to

[[Page 36620]]

the vessel in accordance with 50 CFR Sec.  635.4(e) and is on board;
    (C) No net is set at night or when visibility is less than 500 
yards (1,500 ft, 460 m);
    (D) The gillnet is removed from the water before night or 
immediately if visibility decreases below 500 yards (1,500 ft, 460 m);
    (E) Each set is made under the observation of a spotter plane;
    (F) No gillnet is set within 3 nautical miles (5.6 km) of a right, 
humpback, or fin whale;
    (G) The gillnet is removed immediately from the water if a right, 
humpback, or fin whale moves within 3 nautical miles (5.6 km) of the 
set gear;
    (H) The gear complies with the gear marking requirements specified 
in paragraph (b) of this section; and
    (I) The operator of the vessel calls the Southeast Fisheries 
Science Center Panama City Laboratory in Panama City, FL, not less than 
48 hours prior to departing on any fishing trip in order to arrange for 
observer coverage. If the Panama City Laboratory requests that an 
observer be taken on board a vessel during a fishing trip at any time 
from December 1 through March 31 south of 29[deg]00' N. lat., no person 
may fish with such gillnet aboard that vessel in the Southeast U.S. 
Restricted Area S unless an observer is on board that vessel during the 
trip.
    (iv) Exemption for Spanish Mackerel component of the Southeast 
Atlantic gillnet fishery. Fishing with gillnet for Spanish mackerel is 
exempt from the restrictions under paragraph (f)(2)(ii)(B) of this 
section from December 1 through December 31, and from March 1 through 
March 31 if:
    (A) Gillnet mesh size is between 3.5 inches (8.9 cm) and 4\7/8\ 
inches (12.4 cm) stretched mesh;
    (B) A valid commercial vessel permit for Spanish mackerel has been 
issued to the vessel in accordance with Sec.  622.4(a)(2)(iv) of this 
title and is on board;
    (C) No person may fish with, set, place in the water, or have on 
board a vessel a gillnet with a float line longer than 800 yards (2,400 
ft, 732 m);
    (D) No person may fish with, set, or place in the water more than 
one gillnet at any time;
    (E) No more than two gillnets, including any net in use, may be 
possessed at any one time; provided, however, that if two gillnets, 
including any net in use, are possessed at any one time, they must have 
stretched mesh sizes (as allowed under the regulations) that differ by 
at least .25 inch (.64 cm);
    (F) No person may soak a gillnet for more than 1 hour. The soak 
period begins when the first mesh is placed in the water and ends 
either when the first mesh is retrieved back on board the vessel or the 
gathering of the gillnet is begun to facilitate retrieval on board the 
vessel, whichever occurs first; providing that, once the first mesh is 
retrieved or the gathering is begun, the retrieval is continuous until 
the gillnet is completely removed from the water;
    (G) No net is set at night or when visibility is less than 500 
yards (1,500 ft, 460 m);
    (H) The gillnet is removed from the water before night or 
immediately if visibility decreases below 500 yards (1,500 ft, 460 m);
    (I) No net is set within 3 nautical miles (5.6 km) of a right, 
humpback, or fin whale;
    (J) The gillnet is removed immediately from the water if a right, 
humpback, or fin whale moves within 3 nautical miles (5.6 km) of the 
set gear; and
    (K) The gear complies with the gear marking requirements specified 
in paragraph (b) of this section, the universal anchored gillnet gear 
requirements specified in paragraph (d)(1) of this section, and the 
area-specific requirements for anchored gillnets specified in 
paragraphs (d)(8)(ii)(A) through (d)(8)(ii)(D) of this section for the 
Mid/South Atlantic Gillnet Waters.
    (v) Exemption for vessels in transit with gillnet aboard. 
Possession of gillnet aboard a vessel in transit is exempt from the 
restrictions under paragraph (f)(2)(ii)(A) of this section if: All nets 
are covered with canvas or other similar material and lashed or 
otherwise securely fastened to the deck, rail, or drum; and all buoys, 
high flyers, and anchors are disconnected from all gillnets. No fish 
may be possessed aboard such a vessel in transit.
    (vi) Restrictions for trap/pot gear. Fishing with trap/pot gear in 
the Southeast U.S. Restricted Area N during the restricted period is 
allowed if:
    (A) Trap/pot gear is not fished in a trap/pot trawl;
    (B) All buoys or flotation devices are attached to the buoy line 
with a weak link that meets the requirements of paragraph (c)(2)(ii) of 
this section. The weak link has a maximum breaking strength of 600 lbs 
(272 kg) except in Florida State waters where the maximum breaking 
strength is 200 lbs (91kg);
    (C) The buoy line has a maximum breaking strength of 2,200 lbs (998 
kg) except in Florida State waters where the maximum breaking strength 
is 1,500 lbs (630 kg);
    (D) The entire buoy line must be free of objects (e.g., weights, 
floats, etc.) except where it attaches to the buoy and trap/pot;
    (E) The buoy line is made of sinking line;
    (F) The gear complies with gear marking requirements as specified 
in paragraph (b) of this section; and
    (G) Trap/pot gear that is deployed in the EEZ (as defined in Sec.  
600.10 of this title) is brought back to port at the conclusion of each 
fishing trip.
    (g) Restrictions applicable to the Other Southeast Gillnet Waters 
(1) Area--The Other Southeast Gillnet Waters Area includes all waters 
bounded by 32[deg]00' N. lat. on the north (near Savannah, GA), 
26[deg]46.50' N. lat. on the south (near West Palm Beach, FL), 
80[deg]00' W. long. on the west, and the EEZ boundary on the east.
    (2) Closure for gillnets. Fishing with or possessing gillnet gear 
in the Other Southeast Gillnet Waters Area north of 29[deg]00' N. lat. 
from November 15 through April 15 or south of 29[deg]00' N. lat. from 
December 1 through March 31 is allowed if one of the following 
exemptions applies:
    (i) Exemption for Southeastern U.S. Atlantic shark gillnet fishery. 
Fishing with or possessing gillnet gear with webbing of 5 inches (12.7 
cm) or greater stretched mesh is allowed if:
    (A) The gear is marked as required in paragraph (b) of this 
section.
    (B) No net is set within 3 nautical miles (5.6 km) of a right, 
humpback, or fin whale; and
    (C) The gear is removed immediately from the water if a right, 
humpback, or fin whale moves within 3 nautical miles (5.6 km) of the 
set gear.
    (ii) Exemption for Southeast Atlantic gillnet fishery. Fishing with 
or possessing gillnet gear is allowed if:
    (A) The gear is marked as required in paragraph (b) of this 
section; or
    (B) The gear is fished south of 27[deg]51' N.
    (iii) Exemption for vessels in transit with gillnet aboard. 
Possession of gillnet gear aboard a vessel in transit is allowed if:
    (A) All nets are covered with canvas or other similar material and 
securely fastened to the deck, rail, or drum; and
    (B) All buoys, high flyers, and anchors are disconnected from all 
gillnets.
    (h) Restrictions applicable to the Southeast U.S. Monitoring Area--
(1) Area. The Southeast U.S. Monitoring Area consists of the area from 
27[deg]51' N. lat. (near Sebastian Inlet, FL) south to 26[deg]46.50' N. 
lat. (near West Palm Beach, FL), extending from the shoreline or 
exemption line out to 80[deg]00' W. long.
    (2) Restrictions for Southeastern U.S. Atlantic shark gillnet 
fishery. Fishing with or possessing gillnet gear with

[[Page 36621]]

webbing of 5 inches (12.7 cm) or greater stretched mesh from December 1 
through March 31 is allowed if:
    (i) The gear complies with the gear marking requirements specified 
in paragraph (b) of this section;
    (ii) The vessel owner/operator is in compliance with the vessel 
monitoring system (VMS) requirements found in 50 CFR 635.69; and
    (iii) The vessel owner/operator and crew are in compliance with 
observer requirements found in Sec.  229.7.
    (3) Restrictions for Southeastern U.S. Atlantic shark gillnet 
fishery vessels in transit. Possession of gillnet gear with webbing of 
5 inches (12.7 cm) or greater stretched mesh aboard a vessel in transit 
from December 1 through March 31 is allowed if:
    (i) All gear is stowed as specified in 50 CFR 229.2; and
    (ii) The vessel owner/operator is in compliance with the vessel 
monitoring system (VMS) requirements found in 50 CFR 635.69.
    (i) Other provisions. In addition to any other emergency authority 
under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Endangered Species Act, the 
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, or other 
appropriate authority, the Assistant Administrator may take action 
under this section in the following situations:
    (1) Entanglements in critical habitat or restricted areas. If a 
serious injury or mortality of a right whale occurs in the Cape Cod Bay 
Restricted Area from January 1 through May 15, in the Great South 
Channel Restricted Area from April 1 through June 30, the Southeast 
U.S. Restricted Area N from November 15 to April 15, or the Southeast 
U.S. Restricted Area S from December 1 through March 31 as the result 
of an entanglement by trap/pot or gillnet gear allowed to be used in 
those areas and times, the Assistant Administrator shall close that 
area to that gear type (i.e., trap/pot or gillnet) for the rest of that 
time period and for that same time period in each subsequent year, 
unless the Assistant Administrator revises the restricted period in 
accordance with paragraph (i)(2) of this section or unless other 
measures are implemented under paragraph (i)(2) of this section.
    (2) Other special measures. The Assistant Administrator may, in 
consultation with the Take Reduction Team, revise the requirements of 
this section through a publication in the Federal Register if:
    (i) NMFS verifies that certain gear characteristics are both 
operationally effective and reduce serious injuries and mortalities of 
endangered whales;
    (ii) New gear technology is developed and determined to be 
appropriate;
    (iii) Revised breaking strengths are determined to be appropriate;
    (iv) New marking systems are developed and determined to be 
appropriate;
    (v) NMFS determines that right whales are remaining longer than 
expected in a closed area or have left earlier than expected;
    (vi) NMFS determines that the boundaries of a closed area are not 
appropriate;
    (vii) Gear testing operations are considered appropriate; or
    (viii) Similar situations occur.

[FR Doc. 2014-14936 Filed 6-26-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P