[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 245 (Thursday, December 19, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 66913-66918]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-32111]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
15 CFR Part 992
[Docket No. 950222055-6228-03]
RIN 0648-AH92
Regulation To Prohibit the Attraction of White Sharks in the
Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary
AGENCY: Sanctuaries and Reserves Division (SRD), Office of Ocean and
Coastal Resource Management (OCRM), National Ocean Service (NOS),
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce (DOC).
[[Page 66914]]
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is
amending the regulations governing the Monterey Bay National Marine
Sanctuary (MBNMS or Sanctuary) to prohibit the attraction of white
sharks in the nearshore areas of the Sanctuary. The prohibition is
intended to ensure that Sanctuary resources and qualities are not
adversely impacted and to avoid conflicts among various users of the
Sanctuary.
DATES: This final rule is effective January 21, 1997.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ed Ueber at 415-561-6622 or Elizabeth Moore at 301-713-3141.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
In recognition of the national significance of the unique marine
environment centered around Monterey Bay, California, the MBNMS was
designated on September 18, 1992. SRD issued final regulations,
effective January 1, 1993, to implement the Sanctuary designation (15
CFR Part 922 Subpart M). The MBNMS regulations at 15 CFR 922.132(a)
prohibit a relatively narrow range of activities primarily to protect
Sanctuary resources and qualities.
In January 1994, SRD became aware that chum was being used to
attract white sharks for viewing by SCUBA divers while in underwater
cages. This activity occurred in the nearshore area off of Ano Nuevo in
the MBNMS during the time of year white sharks come to feed. SRD
received expressions of concern over this activity and inquiries as to
whether attracting sharks for viewing and other purposes is allowed in
the MBNMS. NOAA's Sanctuaries and Reserves Division (SRD), with
assistance from the MBNMS Advisory Council, and a number of interested
parties, identified a number of concerns regarding the subject of
attracting white sharks within the MBNMS. The following concerns were
identified throughout NOAA's review of this issue: (1) behavioral
changes in the attracted species (e.g., feeding and migration); (2)
increased risk of attack to other Sanctuary users (e.g., surfers,
windsurfers, swimmers, divers, kayakers, and small craft operators),
increased user conflicts in the area of the activity, and potential
health hazards of the activity; and (3) adverse impacts to other
Sanctuary resources and qualities (e.g., disruption of the ecosystem,
aesthetic impacts). While California State law makes it unlawful to
directly take (e.g., catch, capture, or kill) white sharks in State
waters, it does not address attraction of white sharks.
On February 28, 1995, SRD issued an advance notice of proposed
rulemaking (ANPR; 60 FR 10812), an optional step in the rulemaking
process, to inform the public that SRD was considering restricting or
prohibiting attracting sharks within the Sanctuary and to invite
submission of written information, advice, recommendations, and other
comments. The comment period for the ANPR ended on April 14, 1995. SRD
received 302 letters and several petitions. Further, SRD held a public
hearing in Aptos, California on March 22, 1995, where 35 oral comments
were received. Most comments (over 90%) favored restricting or
prohibiting chumming for or otherwise attracting white sharks in some
fashion in the MBNMS. On February 12, 1996, SRD issued a proposed rule
(61 FR 5335) to prohibit attracting white sharks in State waters of the
Sanctuary.\1\ The comment period for the proposed rule ended on March
31, 1996. SRD received 51 letters. Further, SRD held a public hearing
in El Granada, California on March 1, 1996, where 16 oral comments were
received. Most comments (88%) supported the proposed rule; 5% opposed
the regulation; and the remaining 7% did not express a clear stand on
the issue of white shark attraction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The ANPR and proposed rule also proposed to clarify the
traditional fishing exception to the discharge prohibition in the
existing regulations, as the shark attraction issue had raised a
question as to the applicability of the exception as it pertained to
shark attraction activities. Because the shark attraction
prohibition fully addresses the concerns raised regarding this
issue, NOAA will not address the clarification at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Comments and Responses
The following is a summary of comments received on the proposed
rule and NOAA's responses.
(1) Comment: Artificially attracting white sharks causes short-term
behavioral changes in white sharks, and many cause long-term changes.
Response: NOAA agrees. As stated in the preamble to the proposed
rule, research clearly supports that using attractants (e.g., chum)
causes short-term behavioral changes in white sharks. This is further
evidenced by the fact that artificial shark attraction methods have
been successful in bringing sharks into a targeted area for divers in
cages to view. Both direct and indirect (e.g., more white sharks remain
in a particular area longer, a situation which could alter predator-
prey relationships) behavioral changes can result from attracting white
sharks in nearshore waters of the Sanctuary. In addition, while few
studies have been conducted on the long-term impacts of artificial
attraction on white sharks, scientific studies and observations
indicate that using human manipulation to attract other species of wild
organisms has resulted in behavioral changes.
A report prepared by the Research Activity Panel (RAP Report), a
working group of the Sanctuary Advisory Council, indicates that sharks
are known to be drawn to a specific area based on sensory (hearing and
olfactory) changes in their environment. Some sharks have been trained
to respond to both of these stimuli, but the success of that training
depends on sufficient frequency. Evidence strongly indicates white
shark affinity to the Farallon Islands and Ano Nuevo Island areas due
to the frequency that they are found in these areas and the continued
seasonality of their use of these areas. It has been found that
individual white sharks often feed at the same location at similar
times during successive years.
It has also been found that white sharks at Dangerous Reef in
Southern Australia show a clear tendency to revisit the places where
they were previously observed, suggesting a relatively high degree of
site attachment. The white sharks exhibited an ``island patrolling''
pattern which may represent a home-ranging pattern. Shark feeding
behavior seems to be indiscriminate; white sharks may take learned
``prey-shaped'' items as long as the target ``matches'' a known prey
item (e.g., a surfer lying prone on a surfboard has a silhouette
similar to a seal). Other findings from studies at Dangerous Reef
suggest that white sharks select their prey by shape. However, at the
Farallon Islands, it has been documented that white sharks select prey
of various shapes and sizes. The RAP Report found that sharks have been
observed to alter their feeding behavior based on external clues (e.g.,
learned behavior). The Fisheries Division of the Southern Australia
Department of Primary Industries has recommended that legislation be
enacted to prohibit chumming at Dangerous Reef because of changes in
the white shark's behavior resulting from chumming activities.
Moreover, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (Authority) has
a policy that permits will not be issued for the feeding or attracting
of sharks, identifying reasons similar to those NOAA has regarding its
plan to prohibit attraction of white sharks in the nearshore areas of
the Sanctuary,
[[Page 66915]]
including change in behavior caused by the activity.
Concern about the feeding of or attracting of other species of wild
organisms has been addressed in other areas. Dolphin-feeding cruises in
the Gulf of Mexico are one example of the use of attractants that has
been determined to cause significant negative behavioral changes in
marine mammals. NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) banned
dolphin-feeding cruises in 1991 based on the scientific risks to both
dolphins and humans. The ban was imposed based on evidence that feeding
cruises exposed wild animals to disease and physical danger, and could
alter their migratory and feeding behavior. The U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit upheld the ban in 1993, Strong v. U.S., 5 F.3d
905 (5th Cir. 1993). The Court agreed with NMFS that scientific
evidence supported that feeding activities disturb normal behavior and,
therefore, it was reasonable for the agency to restrict or prohibit the
feeding of wild dolphins.
Other changes in animal behavior, resulting from people altering
the natural feeding methods or locations, have been documented,
including changes in prey items, location of feeding, and changes in
behavioral patterns. Examples include feeding of bison in Yellowstone
National Park, feeding of bear and deer in Parks, polar bears at
Churchill, Canada, and feeding of fish in Hawaii. In all cases, the
ensuing behavioral changes prompted regulators to prohibit feeding
activities to protect the animals and the people feeding them. In the
Hawaii example, the feeding resulted in increases in selected fish
species and thus affected natural community structure on the reefs.
While not directly applicable to white sharks, these examples show that
longer-term behavioral changes can and do result from using human-
manipulated means to attract (in these instances, feed) wild organisms.
(2) Comment: Artificially attracting sharks in nearshore areas
creates a risk to other users of those areas.
Response: NOAA agrees. As stated in the preamble to the proposed
rule, NOAA considers that even a single instance of white shark
attraction conducted near an area where other people are recreating in
the water can increase the risk of harm to those individuals from white
shark attrack. While the exact potential for increased risk is
difficult to assess, and may be an area for further research, most
experts on shark biology agree that enhanced risk is probable where
attraction is occurring. The American Elasmobranch Society, whose
members include professional researchers studying sharks and rays,
conducted a survey of its members in 1994 which included questions on
shark baiting and the protection of sharks. One of the questions asked
was: ``In regard to shark-diving operations which involve regular
baiting, is there a cause for concern (re: shark attack) if such shark
diving operations are conducted relatively close to bathing or surfing
beaches?'' The response resulted in 46% yes, 48% it depends, and 6% no
answer. The Great Barrier Marine Park Authority also cited risks to
other users as one of the reasons it adopted a policy not to issue
permits for the feeding or attracting of sharks. The Authority
indicated that if the policy had not been adopted, then shark
attracting activities would have been prohibited through regulation.
Therefore, while people that spend time in the water in areas near
those known to be inhabited by white sharks are exposed to the
possibility of dangerous interactions, the use of attractions in areas
frequented by people may increase the likelihood of these interactions.
(3) Comment: Artificially attracting white sharks has adverse
impacts on Sanctuary resources in general.
Response: NOAA agrees that the potential exists to cause harm to
Sanctuary resources and qualities from white shark attraction
activities. As stated in the preamble to the proposed rule, altering
white shark behavior can result in disruption of the local population
and the associated ecosystem (e.g., change in predation rate of target
species). Further, attraction of white sharks in nearshore areas can
result in adverse impacts to the aesthetic and recreational qualities
for which the Sanctuary was designated (e.g., the presence of an oily
slick in areas where chumming had occurred was noted by several
commenters on the ANPR).
(4) Comment: One interpretation of the proposed regulation to
prohibit attraction of white sharks might stop traditional recreational
water uses that may inadvertently attract white sharks. NOAA should
revise the regulation to clarify that it only applies to activities
intended to attract white sharks.
Response: NOAA does not intend the prohibition against attracting
white sharks to restrict activities (e.g., swimming, diving, surfing,
boating) that may lure white sharks by virtue of the mere presence of
human beings (e.g., swimmers, divers, surfers, boaters, kayakers). This
is the primary reason the regulation is tailored specifically to
``attract or attracting,'' and not a broader prohibition against
``taking.'' However, to ensure that the narrow scope of the prohibition
is clear, NOAA has revised the definition of ``attract or attracting''
to indicate that it does not include luring white sharks by the mere
presence of human beings.
(5) Comment: The area where white shark attraction activities are
banned needs to be clarified.
Response: NOAA agrees. The shark attraction prohibition in the
proposed regulation applied to State waters of the MBNMS, defined as
three miles seaward of the mean high tide line, because, in part, the
regulation was prepared in such a way as to supplement the existing
State white shark regulation. The proposed definition, however, did not
accurately characterize State waters, and left out those areas that may
extend beyond three nautical miles from mean high tide, such as is the
case with Monterey Bay itself. Therefore, the regulation has been
revised to clarify that it applies from mean high tide to the seaward
limit of State waters, as established under the Submerged Lands Act
(SLA), 43 USC Sec. 1301 et seq., defined for purposes of the regulation
as:
Seaward to a line three nautical miles distant from the
coastline of the State of California, where the coastline is the
line of ordinary low water along the portion of the coast in direct
contact with the open sea. The Coastline for Monterey Bay, which is
inland waters, is the straight line marking the seaward limit of the
Bay, determined by connecting the following two points:
36 deg.57'6'' N, 121 deg.01'45'' W and 36 deg.38'16'' N, 121 deg.
56'3'' W.
(6) Comment: Expand the area where white shark attraction
activities would be banned to six nautical miles from shore. The
current three nautical miles from shore area does not provide
sufficient protection to Sanctuary resources.
Response: NOAA does not believe expanding the area beyond the
seaward limit of State waters is warranted at this time. A large part
of NOAA's concerns are based on the possible interactions between human
users and white sharks, and human users are predominantly found in the
nearshore waters of the Sanctuary. However, there will be some areas up
to six nautical miles from shore where white shark attraction
activities will be banned (see Response to (5) above).
(7) Comment: Limit the restriction on white shark attraction to
only those areas where white sharks are known to congregate (i.e., use
a zoned approach).
Response: NOAA disagrees. There is evidence indicating that,
although white sharks may congregate in certain areas
[[Page 66916]]
(e.g., An Nuevo and the Farallon Islands), white sharks are found all
along the coast of the Sanctuary. NOAA believes that the area described
in the rule is warranted.
(8) Comment: NOAA needs to clarify that white sharks are present in
the nearshore areas of the Sanctuary year-round, not only in the fall
and winter seasons.
Response: NOAA agrees. While white sharks are in the nearshore
areas predominantly during the fall and winter seasons when they
congregate near seal and sea lion rookeries, white shark attacks in the
nearshore areas of the Sanctuary have been documented at all times of
years, indicating a year-round presence of white sharks.
(9) Comment: Criteria for research or education permits for
attraction of white sharks should be clearly spelled out.
Response: Criteria for permit application consideration are listed
in the MBNMS regulations at 15 CFR Secs. 922.48 and 922.133.
(10) Comment: The criteria for permits are so high that it is
highly unlikely permits will ever be issued for research or education
activities that involve attracting white sharks. Therefore, the
regulation amounts to an all-out prohibition as opposed to a
restriction in some areas.
Response: NOAA disagrees. The regulatory procedures and criteria
for obtaining a Sanctuary permit, described in the notice of proposed
rulemaking and found at 15 CFR Secs. 922.48 and 922.133, have been in
place since the regulations were promulgated in 1992. The Sanctuary
issues a number of permits each year for the conduct of activities that
further research related to Sanctuary resources and/or further the
educational resource value of the Sanctuary. Applications for permits
to conduct white shark attraction activities in the Sanctuary will be
assessed on a case-by-case basis based on the regulatory criteria.
(11) Comment: Divers, kayakers, and small craft operators need to
be added to the list of users who are at risk for white shark attacks.
Response: NOAA agrees. The listing of users in the background
portion of the rule has been revised. It should be noted, however, that
this listing is intended to be illustrative, not exhaustive.
(12) Comment: NOAA should add acoustical and visual types of
attractants to the definition of ``attract or attracting''.
Response: The definition of ``attract or attracting'' has been
revised to add as examples acoustical and visual attractants. It should
be noted, however, that this listing in intended to be illustrative,
not exhaustive.
(13) Comment: NOAA ignored information in the RAP Report that
indicated that concern that non-marine chum acting as a vector for the
transfer of terrestrial viruses was not really a concern.
Response: NOAA acknowledges that the RAP Report states it is
unlikely that non-marine chum can act as such a vector. The RAP report,
however, does not preclude the possibility.
(14) Comment: The proposed rule misapplies information (i.e., the
response and comment section of the proposed rule contained information
regarding the impacts of a fisherman killing four white sharks on the
entire white shark population).
Response: NOAA disagrees. The occurrence was offered as an example
of how sensitive the white shark population is to human disturbance.
(15) Comment: The proposed rule treats a rapidly expanding pinniped
population as if it is in balance with a low birth rate shark
population.
Response: NOAA believes that the commenter misinterpreted the
statement. The preamble to the proposed rule stated ``Consequently, any
disruption to the species can have a profound long-term adverse impact.
This was evidenced in 1982, when a fisherman killed four adult white
sharks off of the Farallon Islands. Researchers documented a
significant decline in the occurrence of white sharks attacks on prey
species (e.g., seals and sea lions) in that area between 1983-1985.
This is significant because research indicates that white shark
predation takes approximately 8-10% of the local elephant seal
populations and an unknown percentage of California sea lion
populations; this is enough of a predation rate to maintain a natural
balance in fish and seabird populations.'' The statement was made as an
example of how the predation rate of white sharks contributed to
keeping a natural balance in fish and seabird populations.
(16) Comment: The idea of expanding the taking prohibition in the
ESA and MMPA to white sharks is unsettling, when white sharks are not
listed under either of those acts.
Response: One option NOAA considered early during this process was
expanding the scope of the taking prohibition to include white sharks.
NOAA's original definition of ``taking'' was derived from the Marine
Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) and Endangered Species Act (ESA), and the
current taking prohibition applies only to marine mammals, sea turtles,
and seabirds. However, NOAA may use any legal tool at its discretion to
protect Sanctuary resources, including expanding current Sanctuary
regulations. Extending the ``taking'' prohibition to include white
sharks was considered but was not chosen for a variety of reasons (see
response to (4)).
(17) Comment: The proposed rule is based on emotional arguments
that have no place in objective decision-making by a Federal agency, or
makes statements not supported by the evidence.
Response: NOAA disagrees. NOAA relied on published scientific
literature, the written and oral testimony of acknowledged white shark
experts, and the expertise of its own Sanctuary Advisory Council's
Research Activity panel, in its decision making process and believes
that the regulation is well-supported by accurate and objective
information.
(18) Comment: The proposed rule changes the standard for acceptable
activities, without public review of such a fundamental change (i.e.,
NOAA is appearing to require that activities provide a benefit with
which NOAA will agree).
Response: NOAA is unsure as to what ``standard'' the comment
refers. The NMSA requires that NOAA facilitate multiple uses that are
compatible with the primary mandate of resource protection. This is the
primary factor that NOAA uses in determining what activities are
acceptable within Sanctuary boundaries. As regards public review, NOAA
has developed this rule through notice and comment rulemaking as
required under the Administrative Procedure Act. Further, NOAA added
the optional steps of issuing an advance notice of proposed rulemaking
and holding public hearings on the advance notice and proposed rule to
maximize public input into this rulemaking.
(19) Comment: The proposed rule ignores the narrow intent of the
California State law (i.e., to prevent the catching, capturing, or
killing of white sharks).
Response: NOAA disagrees. This rule is intended to supplement State
law based on NOAA's concerns regarding the practice of artificial
attraction of white sharks within the Sanctuary boundary, and has been
formulated to address those concerns.
(20) Comment: The proposed rule does not present a compelling need
for Sanctuary regulations as opposed to local laws.
Response: Existing State law prohibits only the direct take (e.g.,
catch, capture, or kill) of white sharks and does not
[[Page 66917]]
prohibit attraction. NOAA requested whether the State would expand its
restriction but the State indicated that although legislation was a
possible option, such an action could not occur until at least 1997 and
that a rule was more appropriately initiated by the Sanctuary and its
Advisory Council. Additionally, in promulgating a rule, SRD is under no
obligation to present a compelling need for Sanctuary regulations as
opposed to State or local laws. Consequently, NOAA decided it was
necessary to address this issue through a Sanctuary regulation.
(21) Comment: As the boundaries of the Monterey Bay, Gulf of the
Farallones, and Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuaries are
contiguous, this regulation should be enacted in all three.
Response: NOAA believes that similar regulations for the Gulf of
the Farallones and Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuaries are not
necessary at this time.
III. Summary of Regulations
This final rule amends 15 CFR 922.132(a) by adding a prohibition
against attracting any white shark in that part of the Sanctuary out to
the seaward limit of State waters, as established under the Submerged
Lands Act, 43 U.S.C. 1301 et seq. In defining the seaward limit of
State waters, the final regulation uses the term ``nautical mile'' in
place of the SLA term ``geographical mile'' because ``nautical mile''
is a more commonly used term. However, these terms have the same
definition which is a measure of length or distance that contains 6,080
feet. Section 922.131 is also amended by adding a definition of
``attract or attracting.'' This regulation is necessary to protect the
white shark and other Sanctuary resources (e.g., pinnipeds); to
minimize user conflict in the nearshore areas of the Sanctuary; and to
protect the ecological, aesthetic, and recreational qualities of the
Sanctuary. Concentration of white sharks, associated species, and
people make nearshore areas of the Sanctuary uniquely susceptible to
adverse impacts from attracting white sharks in such areas. The
regulation is narrowly tailored to attraction of white sharks in order
to complement existing California law that prohibits the direct take of
white sharks in California waters, and so as not to prohibit divers
from viewing white sharks in their natural state without the use of
attractants.
There has been some concern expressed that NOAA make clear that
activities not intended to attract white sharks, but that could
incidentally attract them are not included in the prohibition. To
address these concerns, NOAA has revised the definition of ``attract or
attracting'' in the final rule as follows: ``the conduct of any
activity that lures or may lure white sharks by using food, bait, chum,
dyes, acoustics, or any other means, except the mere presence of human
beings (e.g., swimmers, divers, boaters, kayakers, surfers).''
IV. Miscellaneous Rulemaking Requirements
This final rule has been determined to be not significant for
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
Executive Order 12612: Federalism Assessment
NOAA has concluded that this regulatory action does not have
federalism implications sufficient to warrant preparation of a
federalism assessment under Executive Order 12612.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
When this rule was prepared, the Assistant General Counsel for
Legislation and Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to
the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration
that this rule, if adopted as proposed, would not be expected to have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
A prohibition against white shark attraction in the nearshore areas of
the Sanctuary would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities because: the number of commercial
operators presently engaging in this activity is small; white shark
attraction is not likely the sole source of business for such
commercial operators because white sharks only reliably inhabit the
nearshore areas during part of the year; and commercial operators would
not be prohibited from bringing divers to dive in cages to observe
white sharks in their natural state without the use of attractants. The
changes to the final rule and the comments on the proposed rule did not
cause the reasons for this certification to change. Accordingly,
neither an initial nor final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis was
prepared.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This final rule does not impose an information collection
requirement subject to review and approval by OMB under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1980, 44 U.S.C. 3500 et seq.
National Environmental Policy Act
NOAA has concluded that this regulatory action does not constitute
a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human
environment. Therefore, an environmental impact statement is not
required.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
This final rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory
provisions of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(UMRA)) for State, local, and tribal governments or the private sector.
Thus, this rule is not subject to the requirements of section 202 and
205 of the UMRA.
List of Subjects in 15 CFR Part 922
Administrative practice and procedure, Coastal zone, Education,
Environmental protection, Marine resources, Natural resources,
Penalties, Recreation and recreation areas, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Research.
(Federal Domestic Assistance Catalog Number 11.429 Marine Sanctuary
Program)
Dated: December 6, 1996.
David L. Evans,
Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator for Ocean Services and Coastal
Zone Management.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, 15 CFR part 922 is
amended as follows:
PART 922--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 922 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1431 et seq.
Subpart M--Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary
2. Section 922.131 is amended by adding the following definition in
alphabetical order to read as follows:
Sec. 922.131 Definitions.
* * * * *
Attract or attracting means the conduct of any activity that lures
or may lure white sharks by using food, bait, chum, dyes, acoustics or
any other means, except the mere presence of human beings (e.g.,
swimmers, divers, boaters, kayakers, surfers).
* * * * *
3. Section 922.132 is amended by adding new paragraph (a)(10) to
read as follows:
Sec. 922.132 Prohibited or otherwise regulated activities.
(a) * * *
[[Page 66918]]
(10) Attracting any white shark in that part of the Sanctuary out
to the seaward limit of State waters. For the purposes of this
prohibition, the seaward limit of State waters is a line three nautical
miles distant from the coastline of the State, where the coastline is
the line of ordinary low water along the portion of the coast in direct
contact with the open sea. The coastline for Monterey Bay, which is
inland waters, is the straight line marking the seaward limit of the
Bay, determined by connecting the following two points: 36 deg.57'6''
N, 121 deg.01'45'' W and 36 deg.38'16'' N, 121 deg.56'3'' W.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 96-32111 Filed 12-18-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-08-M