[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 26 (Wednesday, February 7, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 8333-8349]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-02438]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 229

[Docket No. 240201-0032]
RIN 0648-BM31


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 is amending the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan 
(Plan) to expand the boundaries of the seasonal Massachusetts 
Restricted Area (MRA) to include the wedge between State and Federal 
waters known as the Massachusetts Restricted Area Wedge (MRA Wedge). 
The MRA Wedge was seasonally closed to trap/pot fishing gear by 
emergency rulemaking in 2022 and 2023 to prevent the immediate risk to 
the North Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena glacialis, right whale) of 
mortality and serious injury caused by entanglement in fixed-gear buoy 
lines. Substantial observational evidence has documented the consistent 
presence of right whales within the MRA Wedge from February through 
April and aerial surveys have similarly documented the presence of 
aggregated fixed gear in the MRA Wedge during this same time period. 
Due to the co-occurrence of whales and buoy lines, both in high 
densities in this area during the specified times of year, this 
entanglement risk is expected to recur annually. This action will 
address this gap in protection between seasonally closed State and 
Federal waters and reduce the incidental mortality and serious injury 
of right whales, fin whales (Balaenoptera physalus), and humpback 
whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) in commercial trap/pot fisheries. There 
is a specific carve out for this rule in the Consolidated 
Appropriations Act, 2023 (CAA).

DATES: This rule is effective March 8, 2024.

ADDRESSES: Copies of this action, including the Final Environmental 
Assessment (EA) and the Regulatory Impact Review/Final Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis (RIR/FRFA) prepared in support of this action, are 
available via the internet at https://www.regulations.gov/ or by 
contacting Jennifer Goebel (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT below).
    Several of the background documents for the Plan and the take 
reduction planning process can also be downloaded from the Plan website 
(https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/ALWTRP). Information on the analytical 
tools used to support the development and analysis of the final 
regulations can be found in the EA and appendices. The complete text of 
current regulations implementing the Plan can be found in 50 CFR 229.32 
or downloaded from the Plan's website, along with outreach compliance 
guides to current regulations.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Goebel, 978-281-9175, 
[email protected], Colleen Coogan, 978-281-9181, 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The right whale population has been in decline since 2010, with the 
most recent published estimate of right whale population size in 2022 
at 356 whales (95 percent confidence interval: 346-363) (Linden 2023) 
with a strong male bias (Hayes et al. 2023, Pace et al. 2017, Pace 
2021). The steep population decline is a result of high levels of 
human-caused mortality from entanglement in fishing gear and vessel 
strikes in both the United States and Canada. An Unusual Mortality 
Event (UME) was declared for the population in 2017, due to high rates 
of documented vessel strikes and entanglement in fishing gear. As of 
January 18, 2024, the UME includes 36 detected mortalities (17 in 2017, 
3 in 2018, 10 in 2019, 2 in 2020, 2 in 2021, 0 in 2022, and 2 in 2023). 
In addition, 35 serious injuries were documented (6 in 2017, 6 in 2018, 
3 in 2019, 6 in 2020,

[[Page 8334]]

5 in 2021, 4 in 2022, 4 in 2023, and 1 in 2024). Lastly, 51 morbidity 
(or sublethal injury or illness) cases were documented (13 in 2017, 12 
in 2018, 6 in 2019, 6 in 2020, 2 in 2021, 6 in 2022, and 6 in 2023). 
See https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-life-distress/2017-2023-north-atlantic-right-whale-unusual-mortality-event. Documented 
mortalities and serious injuries represent a minimum; in some years 
population models estimate up to 64 percent of all mortalities are not 
seen and not accounted for in the right whale observed incident data 
(Pace et al. 2021, Pace et al. 2017).
    The North Atlantic right whale is listed as an endangered species 
under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and is a strategic stock under 
the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). NMFS is required by the MMPA 
to reduce mortality and serious injury incidental to commercial fishing 
to below a stock's potential biological removal (PBR) level. PBR is 
defined as ``the maximum number of animals, not including natural 
mortalities, that may be removed from a marine mammal stock while 
allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimum sustainable 
population.'' In the most recently published stock assessment report 
(Hayes et al. 2023), PBR for the North Atlantic right whale population 
is 0.7 whales per year. Between 2010 and 2024, there has not been a 
single year where observed mortality and serious injury of right whales 
was below PBR. Moreover, total estimated mortality has been higher than 
observed mortality (Hayes et al. 2023, Linden 2023, Pace et al. 2021).
    The Plan was implemented in 1997 pursuant to section 118 of the 
MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1387) to reduce mortality and serious injury of three 
stocks of large whales (fin, humpback, and North Atlantic right) 
incidental to certain Category I and II fisheries. Under the MMPA, a 
strategic stock of marine mammals is defined as a stock for which at 
least one of the following is demonstrated: (1) the level of direct 
human-caused mortality exceeds the PBR level; (2) based on the best 
available scientific information, the stock is declining and is likely 
to be listed as a threatened species under the ESA within the 
foreseeable future; or (3) it is listed as a threatened or endangered 
species under the ESA or is designated as depleted under the MMPA (16 
U.S.C. 1362(19)). The North Atlantic right whale is a strategic stock 
because the human-caused mortality exceeds the PBR level and because it 
is listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act. When 
incidental mortality or serious injury of marine mammals from 
commercial fishing exceeds a stock's PBR level, the MMPA directs NMFS 
to convene a take reduction team of stakeholders that includes 
representatives of the following: Federal agencies; each coastal State 
that has fisheries interacting with the species or stock; appropriate 
Regional Fishery Management Councils; interstate fisheries commissions; 
academic and scientific organizations; environmental groups; all 
commercial and recreational fisheries groups using gear types that 
incidentally take the species or stock; and, if relevant, Alaska Native 
organizations or Indian tribal organizations.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ There are no Alaska Native or Indian tribal organizations on 
the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Team.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Team (Team) has 59 members, 
including 23 trap/pot and gillnet fishermen or fishery representatives. 
The background for the take reduction planning process and initial 
development of the Plan is provided in the preambles to the proposed 
rule (62 FR 16519, April 7, 1997), interim final rule (62 FR 39157, 
July 22, 1997), and final rule (64 FR 7529, February 16, 1999) 
implementing the initial plan. The Team met and recommended 
modifications to the Plan, implemented by NMFS through rulemaking, 
several times since 1997 in an ongoing effort to meet the MMPA take 
reduction goals.
    The most recent modification to the Plan was implemented by a final 
rule published on September 17, 2021 (86 FR 51970). Mortalities and 
serious injuries of right whales continue at levels exceeding the right 
whale's PBR. Additional data on right whale population estimates, 
including cryptic (unobserved) mortality (Linden 2023, Pace et al. 
2021, Pace et al. 2017), the stock's decline, changes in distribution 
and reproductive rates, and entanglement-related mortalities and 
serious injuries that have been documented in recent years, can be 
found in Chapters 2 and 4 of the Final Environmental Impact Statement 
(NMFS 2021a) and the preamble to the 2021 rule (86 FR 51970, September 
17, 2021).
    The 2021 rule inadvertently left a critical gap in protection for 
right whales in waters adjacent to the MRA. Observational sightings 
from 2018 through 2023 provide empirical evidence of the high risk of 
overlap between right whales and buoy lines in this area (see figures 2 
and 3 below). The 2021 rule expanded the geographic extent of the MRA 
under the Plan to mirror the area included in the 2021 Massachusetts 
State Commercial Trap Gear Closure to Protect Right Whales (322 CMR 
12.04(2), hereafter referred to as MA State Waters Trap/Pot Closure), 
which extended restrictions north to the New Hampshire border (figure 
1). The MRA, as implemented under the Plan, is in place from February 1 
through April 30, while the MA State Waters Trap/Pot Closure area is 
closed from February 1 through May 15, with the option to open early on 
April 30 or extend the closure in May depending on right whale 
sightings and copepod abundance. The implementation of the 2021 MRA 
expansion left open approximately 200 square miles (518 square 
kilometers) of Federal waters, called the MRA Wedge, nearly enclosed by 
State and Federal closures. In addition to gear normally fished in the 
MRA Wedge (figure 1) during these months, the State water closure 
caused gear aggregation in this area, necessitating a similar seasonal 
closure contemporaneous with the State and Federal closures in adjacent 
waters. Center for Coastal Studies (CCS) and the Northeast Fisheries 
Science Center (NEFSC) reported consistent observations of right whales 
within the MRA Wedge from February through April 2018-2023 (figure 3). 
Aerial surveys conducted by CCS in April 2021 and February and March of 
2022 also documented the presence of aggregated fixed fishing gear in 
the MRA Wedge and in waters north of the MRA (figure 2). Though right 
whales and the associated entanglement risk are present annually in 
Federal waters adjacent to Massachusetts before and after the February 
1 through April 30 MRA trap/pot closure period, the MRA Wedge poses an 
acute entanglement risk to right whales from February through April 
during the MRA closure.
    In January 2022, NMFS received letters and emails from 
Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries (MA DMF), Stellwagen Bank 
National Marine Sanctuary, and non-governmental organizations 
expressing concerns about this gap in restricted waters and the 
heightened risk of entanglement for right whales during the MRA closure 
period from February through April (see Appendix 3.1 in the associated 
EA for this action for Letters of Concern). After further reviewing 
available information and considering the high entanglement risk in 
this relatively small area, NMFS prepared and issued an emergency rule 
prohibiting trap/pot fishery buoy lines within the MRA Wedge for the 
month of April 2022 (87 FR 11590, March 2, 2022). Though the January 
2022 letter

[[Page 8335]]

from MA DMF requested a closure to coincide with the MRA closure 
period, running from February through April, the emergency closure in 
the MRA Wedge was only implemented in April 2022 due to the months 
required to prepare a new emergency rule and EA (NMFS 2022) analyzing 
the potential economic and biological impacts of the closure.
    In December 2022, the Team voted by majority on recommendations to 
further reduce right whale entanglement mortality and serious injury in 
U.S. commercial fisheries regulated under the Plan. Among the measures 
recommended was a spatially expanded MRA that would address the 
entanglement risk in the MRA Wedge and waters farther north, including 
Jeffreys Ledge. On December 12, 2022, MA DMF requested that NMFS extend 
the emergency MRA Wedge closure into 2023 and 2024, or until new long-
term measures could be implemented. On January 4, 2023, following the 
signing of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023 (CAA),\2\ MA DMF 
reiterated its concerns about the unprotected waters of the MRA Wedge 
and indicated full support for an annual closure of the area from 
February through May, or as long as the adjacent areas (i.e., Federal 
or State waters) remain closed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The CAA at Sec.  101(a) declares that ``for the period 
beginning on the date of enactment of this Act and ending on 
December 31, 2028, the Final Rule amending the regulations 
implementing the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan (86 FR 
51970) shall be deemed sufficient to ensure that the continued 
Federal and State authorizations of the American lobster and Jonah 
crab fisheries are in full compliance with the Marine Mammal 
Protection Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) and the Endangered 
Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).'' H.R. 2617-1631--H.R. 
2617-1632, Division JJ--North Atlantic Right Whales, Title I--North 
Atlantic Right Whales and Regulations. However, CAA Sec.  101(b) 
provides that the ``provisions of subsection (a) shall not apply to 
an existing emergency rule, or any action taken to extend or make 
final an emergency rule that is in place on the date of enactment of 
this Act, affecting lobster and Jonah crab.'' This rule falls under 
that exemption for the reasons explained in the Classification 
section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On January 31, 2023, NMFS announced an extension of the 2022 
emergency rule closing the MRA Wedge to trap/pot fishing with buoy 
lines from February 1 to April 30 while adjacent Federal waters within 
the MRA were similarly restricted (88 FR 7362, February 3, 2023; NMFS 
2023; see figure 1). On August 22, 2023, MA DMF again reiterated strong 
support for a permanent annual closure of the MRA Wedge from February 
through April due to ``a level of entanglement risk that is troubling 
and begs for a permanent management solution.'' MA DMF stated in a 
letter to NMFS that the ``gap in the closure . . . created a refuge for 
fishers to place their gear, leading to extraordinarily high gear 
densities in the Wedge Area. DMF believes most gear in this area is 
infrequently hauled and largely being stored in this location . . . .'' 
DMF also provided empirical gear and whale sightings data from 2021 
through 2023 that demonstrated the high co-occurrence of gear and right 
whales.
    North Atlantic right whales are known to aggregate in Cape Cod Bay 
in winter and spring to forage on copepods (Watkins and Schevill 1976, 
Mayo and Marx 1990, Mayo et al. 2018). The whales begin arriving in 
Cape Cod Bay and surrounding waters as early as December and typically 
leave the area during the month of May (Jacquet et al. 2007, Hlista et 
al. 2009, Pendleton et al. 2009, Plourde et al. 2019, Ganley et al. 
2019). Abundance of right whales in Cape Cod Bay during winter and 
spring has increased over time, despite a declining population size, 
making protection of Cape Cod Bay and surrounding waters during their 
presence particularly important for population recovery (Ganley et al. 
2019, Hudak et al. 2023). Ganley et al. (2019) found that sightings 
data do not accurately reflect peak whale presence due to diving 
behavior that reduces time on the surface. Higher abundances occur in 
January through March than are detectable through simple whale counts 
or sightings per unit effort, and the time of peak abundance varies 
annually, sometimes occurring in March or April (Pendleton et al. 
2022). Furthermore, right whale use of Cape Cod Bay has increased in 
recent years as spring temperatures warm up earlier in the year, 
suggesting that the time of peak abundance may continue to occur 
earlier in the year in the future due to climate change (Ganley et al. 
2022).
    Detections of right whales in the MRA and surrounding waters from 
February through April demonstrate that whales continue to occupy and 
travel through the MRA Wedge to feed in waters in and around 
Massachusetts Bay (figure 3; also see figures 14-19 in the associated 
EA for this action). Though many right whales aggregate within Cape Cod 
Bay, they are highly mobile and are also detected visually or 
acoustically in and around Massachusetts Bay and the MRA Wedge, with a 
notable increase from February through April (Johnson et al. 2021). 
Dedicated survey data on right whale presence in February and March in 
Massachusetts Bay and the MRA Wedge likely underestimate the actual 
presence of right whales, given lower survey effort in the area north 
of Cape Cod Bay and variation in whale detection during these months 
(Ganley et al. 2019). As the right whale's food source declines in 
April within Cape Cod Bay (Hlista et al. 2009; Ganley et al. 2019, 
Ganley et al. 2022, Hudak et al. 2023), right whale distribution 
accordingly shifts and the presence of right whales in the MRA Wedge 
increases as they leave Cape Cod Bay, contributing to a peak of 
sightings in Massachusetts Bay in April. It is critical that the MRA 
includes the MRA Wedge within the boundaries of the existing closure 
under the Plan to reduce mortalities and serious injuries from 
entanglements in buoy lines (figure 4).
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P

[[Page 8336]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07FE24.030


[[Page 8337]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07FE24.031


[[Page 8338]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07FE24.032


[[Page 8339]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07FE24.033

BILLING CODE 3510-22-C

Changes to the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan

    This final rule expands the boundaries of the MRA, where the use of 
persistent trap/pot buoy lines are seasonally prohibited, to include 
the MRA Wedge (figure 4). This final rule closes this area during the 
existing MRA closure season under the Plan from February 1 through 
April 30 (86 FR 51970, September 17, 2021) to reduce acute entanglement 
risk. As shown above in figures 2 and 3, empirical observations of 
right whales alongside fixed fishing gear observed in the MRA Wedge 
from February through April in the years 2018-2023, and the high 
density of right whales in nearby adjacent waters, demonstrate the 
urgent need for the closure.
    To estimate the reduction of entanglement-related mortality and 
serious injury risk with the implementation of this final rule, we used 
the Large Whale Decision Support Tool (DST) version 4.1.0 created by 
NMFS' Northeast Fisheries Science Center to quantitatively evaluate

[[Page 8340]]

potential risk outcomes for relevant management actions. The DST 
incorporates a right whale habitat-based density model built by 
researchers at Duke University's Marine Geospatial Ecology Laboratory 
in the Nicholas School of the Environment (Version 12, released 
February 14, 2022; Roberts et al. 2016a, Roberts et al. 2016b, Roberts 
et al. 2020, Roberts et al. 2021, Roberts and Halpin 2022; referred to 
as the Duke University whale density model). The Duke University whale 
density model estimates the spatiotemporal distribution and density of 
right whales throughout the U.S. Atlantic based on observations of 
whales from standardized surveys from January 2010 through September 
2020 and co-located oceanographic and habitat variables. As described 
below, the DST utilizes fishing gear data from 2010-2020. Efforts are 
underway to add additional years of data. The DST estimates that the 
MRA Wedge closure produces an approximately 1.8 to 2.3 percent 
reduction of risk of mortality or serious injury due to entanglement 
relative to all Northeast trap/pot fisheries. This is equivalent to a 
total risk reduction of approximately 13 to 16.5 percent for the trap/
pot fisheries in Lobster Management Area 1 (LMA 1) Massachusetts 
waters, where the threat of entanglement is particularly high for right 
whales.
    The best available scientific information demonstrates the need for 
this action. It also shows that the MRA Wedge closure will likely 
provide more protection for right whales than the DST estimates because 
the co-occurrence of right whales and buoy lines is likely higher than 
the DST estimates. First, the DST utilizes buoy line estimates from 
2015-2018 (lobster and Jonah crab in State and Federal waters), 2010-
2020 (other Federal trap/pot fisheries), and 2012-2019 (other trap/pot 
fisheries in State waters). The gap in right whale protections between 
State and Federal closed waters following the 2021 rule (86 FR 51970, 
September 17, 2021) likely pushed more gear into the MRA Wedge than the 
DST estimates, as fishermen moved gear from adjacent closed waters into 
open waters of the MRA Wedge.\3\ Visual observations of buoy lines in 
the MRA Wedge during 2021 and 2022, (see e.g., figure 2) and 
correspondence with Massachusetts DMF (see e.g., the letters from MA 
DMF, discussed above), further support this conclusion in addition to 
the DST analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ NMFS also recognizes the reductions in buoy lines caused by 
the MRA Wedge emergency closures in April 2022 and February through 
April 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, the Duke University whale density model estimates that 
approximately 0.04 right whales are likely present at any given time in 
the MRA Wedge throughout the month in February; approximately 1.4 in 
March; and approximately 3.3 in April (see Table 8 in the associated 
EA). However, recent right whale sightings data, not yet incorporated 
into the model, demonstrate a higher concentration of right whales than 
the Duke University whale density model. For example, on February 23, 
2021, the NEFSC aerial survey team observed seven right whales inside 
the MRA Wedge. On April 8, 2021, a dedicated NEFSC aerial survey team 
observed 40 right whales in groups of up to 3 within the MRA Wedge. 
Later the same month, on April 28, 2021, the Center for Coastal Studies 
aerial survey team observed 19 right whales in the MRA Wedge. On March 
7, 2022, NEFSC reported sighting three groups of three right whales 
(nine whales total) in the middle portion of the MRA Wedge around 
42[deg]20' North latitude. On April 14, 2023, five right whales (a 
group of four and one individual) were sighted in the southernmost 
portion of the MRA Wedge. Opportunistic sightings were also reported. 
On March 14, 2020, two groups of two and three right whales (five 
whales total) were reported in the middle portion of the MRA Wedge 
around 42[deg]20' North latitude. On April 25, 2022, an opportunistic 
sighting of a group of seven right whales was reported in the southern 
portion of the MRA Wedge, off of North Scituate.
    Additional data support the conclusion that there is a high 
concentration of right whales in the MRA Wedge. Figure 3 shows a high 
density of right whale sightings around the MRA Wedge; these whales 
likely enter or transit through the MRA Wedge. Acoustic detections of 
vocalizing right whales also confirm their presence in and around the 
MRA Wedge (see figures 15, 17, and 19 in the associated EA). Finally, 
right whale presence often goes undetected, and detectability can 
depend on whale behavioral states (transiting, feeding, socializing; 
Hain et al. 1999, Pendleton et al. 2009, Clark et al. 2010, Ganley et 
al. 2019, Ceballos et al. 2022). In summary, there is an acute 
entanglement risk that occurs annually because of the co-occurrence of 
buoy lines and right whales in the MRA Wedge if the area remains open 
to trap/pot fishing in February through April.
    The economic impact on the lobster and Jonah crab trap/pot fishery 
of adding the MRA Wedge to the MRA is estimated to be relatively small 
compared to the total value of the fishery. All impacted vessels remain 
authorized to fish trap/pot gear in the open waters of LMA 1, and 
elsewhere as permitted. We estimate that the MRA Wedge closure will 
impact between 26-31 vessels each month and that the annual costs, 
including gear transportation costs and lost revenue, range from 
$339,000 to $608,000, or $1.7 million to $3 million across 5 years. For 
this analysis, we evaluated two scenarios. We analyzed a reasonable 
scenario where half of the vessels would relocate their traps, and the 
other half would stop fishing.\4\ For vessels that stop fishing, the 
cost differences include lost revenue, gear relocation costs, and saved 
operating costs from not fishing. The lower and higher range of cost 
estimates come from the range of lost revenue of the relocated vessels, 
and a range of gear relocation costs for all vessels. We calculated the 
number of vessels impacted using the average number of vessels fishing 
within the MRA Wedge for the months February, March, and April for each 
year from 2017 to 2021, according to Vessel Trip Report (VTR) data and 
adjusted based on the average percentage of LMA 1 lobster-only vessels 
required to provide VTR data in Massachusetts (41 percent). We also 
averaged landing values for the time period using landing pounds from 
VTR data and lobster prices in Massachusetts provided in dealer 
reports. For more details on the economic analyses, please see (1) the 
Classification section below; and (2) subsection 6.2 in the associated 
EA and RIR/FRFA for this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The best available data of trap/pot restricted areas show 
that removal of gear is more likely for nearshore areas, such as the 
MRA Wedge, where fishermen can have long transit distances to open 
areas, and because fishermen are also restricted in State waters. 
However, fishermen who fish in the MRA Wedge must have Federal 
permits, and so they would be able to move their fishing gear to 
open Federal waters in LMA 1 or elsewhere, as permitted. Discussions 
with Massachusetts fishermen in 2022 indicated that relocating gear 
outside the closure area is especially attractive in times of high 
lobster prices such as 2021 and the spring of 2022 (Mike Lane 
comments to the Team in January 2022, Robert Martin, pers. comm. 
2022). Relocating gear is more likely for fishermen fishing out of 
the northern ports (e.g., ports in Essex county), closer to open 
Federal waters. Fishermen fishing out of the more southern ports 
(e.g., ports in Plymouth county) are more likely to remove their 
gear from the water. Based on Vessel Trip Report (VTR) data, transit 
distances to open waters, and the economics of the fishery, we 
determined that a 50/50 split between gear removal from the water 
and trap relocation served as a reasonable basis for our analysis. 
See RIR at section 5.4.4 for more details.

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

[[Page 8341]]

Comments and Responses

    On September 18, 2023, we published the proposed rule to amend the 
Plan to expand the boundaries of the MRA to include the wedge between 
State and Federal waters known as the MRA Wedge, along with the draft 
EA. A 30-day public comment period began on September 18, 2023, and 
ended on October 18, 2023 (88 FR 63917, September 18, 2023). We 
reviewed and considered all written and oral public submissions 
received during the comment period. Comments on the proposed rule and 
draft EA were accepted as electronic submissions via regulations.gov on 
docket number NOAA-NMFS-2023-0083. We also accepted public comments at 
two in-person public hearings on September 26, 2023, in Gloucester, MA, 
and on September 28, 2023, in Buzzards Bay, MA.
    A total of 26 individuals or groups submitted written comments 
through the regulations.gov comment portal, and 9 speakers submitted 
comments orally at the public hearings. One speaker submitted the same 
comment three times, at both public hearings, as well as through 
written comment. Two speakers submitted the same comments twice, at a 
public hearing and through a written comment. In total, we received 
comments from 31 unique commenters (individuals or groups). Of these 31 
commenters, 7 were fishermen, 3 were fishing industry associations (2 
commenters were members of the same organization, but their comments 
were different), 6 were other non-governmental organizations, 11 were 
other members of the public, 2 were State fishery resource managers, 
and 2 were Federal resource managers. Of the 31 commenters, 13 
supported Alternative 1 (No Action), 9 supported Alternative 2 
(Preferred), 8 supported Alternative 3, and 1 commenter did not express 
support for any alternative. Overall, 17 commenters supported taking 
action, while 13 did not.
    We received several comments that were outside the scope of the 
current rulemaking, primarily related to offshore wind energy 
development and vessel strikes. NMFS recognizes that recovery of right 
whales depends on reducing multiple threats to the species across its 
range, in and beyond U.S. waters. Recovery priorities, efforts, and 
associated milestones, termed the North Atlantic Right Whale Road to 
Recovery, are detailed on the NMFS website (see https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species/north-atlantic-right-whale/road-recovery).
    NMFS undertook this final rule, as analyzed in the Final EA, 
through MMPA authority specific to incidental take in U.S. commercial 
fisheries. 16 U.S.C. 1387. Although right whales face threats in 
addition to commercial fishing, the Plan and the take reduction process 
focus on monitoring and managing incidental mortality and serious 
injury of marine mammals in U.S. commercial fisheries. Because comments 
related to offshore wind development and vessel strikes were outside 
the scope of this rulemaking, we forwarded these comments to the 
appropriate staff at NMFS but do not provide individual responses in 
this document. Below are responses to comments regarding the proposed 
rule.
    Comment 1: Two fishermen stated that they had never seen right 
whales in this area while fishing; one noted that there is no whale 
sighting demarcation in the sightings figure (see figure 3 above) in 
his precise fishing location within the MRA Wedge. Both expressed 
skepticism about whether right whales use the MRA Wedge.
    Response: As noted above and in the EA, visual detections confirm 
right whale presence in and around Massachusetts Bay and the MRA Wedge, 
with a substantial presence from February through April (Johnson et al. 
2021, survey results from February-April 2018-2023 depicted in figure 
3). Sighting locations are specific to when the whale was observed and 
are an empirical confirmation of presence at a point in time. It is 
also well-documented that the whales are highly mobile, within and 
between foraging and breeding areas (Mate et al. 1997, Slay and Kraus 
1997, Baumgartner et al. 2017)). Accordingly, protective areas 
encompass waters between sighting locations. Acoustic detections of 
vocalizing right whales also confirm their presence in and around the 
MRA Wedge (see figures 15, 17, and 19 in the associated EA). Because 
there have been instances of acoustic detections of vocalizing whales 
that were undocumented by concurrent aerial surveillance (Murray et al. 
2022), acoustic data collection is an important supplement to the 
visual sightings data.
    Comment 2: One commenter stated that, although whales may use the 
area, fishermen have been fishing in this area long before the right 
whale population started to decline, and therefore any population 
decline was not related to fishing gear in this area.
    Response: NMFS is required to meet the mandates of the MMPA. While 
co-occurrence of fishing gear and right whales in the MRA Wedge is not 
new, several changes in recent years have contributed to the need for 
this closure. First, decline in the right whale population size has 
reduced the PBR level for the species. Between the 2018 and 2021 Stock 
Assessment Reports, PBR for North Atlantic right whales declined from 
0.9 per year to 0.7 per year (Hayes et al. 2019; Hayes et al. 2022), 
and, in the most recently published stock assessment report, PBR stands 
at merely 0.7 whales per year (Hayes et al. 2023).
    Second, increased right whale habitat use and fishing gear density 
in Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays since 2015 has heightened the risk 
of right whale mortality and serious injury from entanglement in 
commercial fishing gear in this area. In the years since the 2015 
implementation of the original MRA closure, right whale seasonal 
habitat use increased in State and Federal waters inside and 
immediately outside of Cape Cod Bay, particularly in Massachusetts Bay, 
including the MRA Wedge (Johnson et al. 2021). As explained above and 
as identified by MA DMF, the 2021 closure of adjacent State waters 
likely increased the density of gear in the MRA Wedge during the MRA 
closure period. Observational sightings of whales and gear during 
surveys conducted from 2018 through 2023 provide empirical evidence of 
the high risk of overlap between right whales and buoy lines in this 
area (see figures 2 and 3 above). Recent circumstances and events have 
increased the risk of lethal entanglement in the MRA Wedge and have 
exacerbated the adverse population level consequences of any such an 
entanglement.
    Comment 3: Several commenters suggested that the risk to right 
whales in the MRA Wedge may be underestimated by the DST.
    Response: The DST may underestimate risk in the MRA Wedge during 
February through April. The most current whale habitat density model 
provided by Duke University (Version 12, released February 14, 2022; 
Roberts et al. 2016a, Roberts et al. 2016b, Roberts et al. 2020, 
Roberts et al. 2021, Roberts and Halpin 2022), has not yet incorporated 
certain empirical data such as dedicated survey sightings from October 
2020 to present, nor does it include empirical acoustic and 
opportunistic right whale detections. These empirical data provide 
support for the right whale distribution indicated by the Duke 
University whale density model.
    Using the current Duke University whale density model, the DST 
estimates that risk reduction associated with a MRA Wedge closure is 
substantial.

[[Page 8342]]

Recent changes to ocean circulation patterns are causing changes to 
prey distribution (Record 2019a, Record 2019b), and empirical 
observations, both visual and acoustic, demonstrate that the waters off 
Massachusetts are increasingly used seasonally by more right whales. 
Recent monitoring has also confirmed an increase in seasonal whale 
presence in Federal waters near Cape Cod Bay, including in the MRA 
Wedge. The DST provides a reasonable comparison of the relative risk 
reduction among action and non-action alternatives and a reasonable 
estimate of the overall risk reduction for each alternative. NMFS 
considered the empirical evidence showing greater seasonal right whale 
presence in the MRA Wedge than predicted by the Duke University whale 
density model. NMFS also considered that buoy-line density would likely 
be higher in the MRA Wedge than DST estimates. Recent empirical data of 
right whales and buoy-lines provide the first line of evidence 
justifying this rulemaking; the DST estimates, which incorporate the 
Duke University whale density model, provide a strong secondary and 
supporting line of evidence. Both lines of evidence are the best 
scientific information available.
    Comment 4: One commenter suggested that NMFS was relying on 
outdated data by using the DST to support adding the MRA Wedge to the 
MRA, stating that NMFS's final rulemaking should explain why whale 
distribution data for the past 3 years (2020-2023) were not included in 
its analysis, and suggesting that NMFS is not using the best scientific 
data available.
    Response: We used the most recent whale distribution data from a 
variety of sources, including dedicated surveys, acoustic detections, 
opportunistic sightings, and the Duke University whale habitat model. 
Although the DST does not utilize whale distribution data after 
September 2020, NMFS considered whale distribution data from 2010-2023. 
As noted in the response to Comment 3 and elsewhere, the rule utilizes 
the best available scientific information, including recent right whale 
distribution data from 2020-2023. For example, we considered empirical 
sightings up through the present, including acoustic and observational 
sightings data from 2018-2023. For a more detailed explanation of the 
data used as well as the application of the DST model and the data it 
contains, please see subsections 3.2 and 6.2 in the associated EA.
    Comment 5: One commenter suggested that NMFS should evaluate 
whether the 2021 rule and the 2022 and 2023 emergency rules have been 
effective in reducing risk outcomes for right whales over the past 2 
years before implementing the MRA Wedge as an amendment to the Plan.
    Response: As set forth in the Plan's Monitoring Strategy (NERO PRD 
2012), we review the Plan's effectiveness and compliance with it 
annually, through a variety of reports, summaries, and Team meetings. 
We conduct biological analyses, including evaluating large whale 
population trends, entanglement events, mortality/serious injury, 
frequency of reported entanglement events, and data on large whale 
scarification; disentanglement and gear analyses, including evaluating 
large whale stranding response, disentanglement response, and 
collection and identification of recovered gear; and oceanographic and 
fisheries-based analyses, including evaluating effects of oceanographic 
trends and commercial fisheries regulation on large whale species. As 
part of our annual monitoring efforts, we also review fishing industry 
analyses, including observer data on commercial gear and fishing 
effort; conduct analysis of law enforcement activities, including 
collaborating/communicating with law enforcement partners, funding of 
joint enforcement agreements, and conducting targeted special 
operations patrols; and undertake analysis of education and outreach 
activities, including quantifying outreach efforts to the public, 
evaluating effectiveness of industry liaisons, and evaluating 
effectiveness of outreach to State and local law enforcement partners. 
These efforts are shared with the Team every year.
    As noted in the Monitoring Strategy, evaluating the effectiveness 
of the Plan and its components presents several unique challenges, 
including limited data pertaining to large whale fishery interactions. 
Large whale entanglements are typically not observed or documented by 
fishery observers or other sources. Scarring reports indicate that 
right whales sometimes become entangled but then shed the gear without 
human intervention, thus, even when serious injuries and mortalities 
are observed with evidence of entanglement, there is no gear remaining. 
Furthermore, in most of the limited number of observed entanglement 
cases with gear still present, fishing gear cannot be removed, and when 
gear is removed, it can rarely be attributed to a particular gear type, 
component, fishery, or geographic region due to lack of distinctive 
marks that would identify the source of the gear (see subsection 5.1.1 
in the associated EA).
    Nevertheless, the 2022 emergency closure and its extension in 2023 
had their intended effect of separating whales from risk during the 
closure period. Substantial risk reduction is evident, given that 
vertical buoy lines were not present in the MRA Wedge in April 2022 and 
February through April 2023--months when large groups of right whales 
were observed in the area in recent years (including, among other 
sightings, single day observations of 40 right whales on April 28, 2021 
and 9 whales on March 7, 2022). The present rulemaking is therefore 
necessary to address present and future risk in the MRA Wedge. NMFS 
reasonably anticipates that the MRA Wedge closure will immediately 
address entanglement risk from static vertical lines. Removing static 
vertical lines from the MRA Wedge at the time of year when there is 
documented high presence of right whales decreases the risk of right 
whale entanglement. NMFS will continue to consider and address new 
information as it comes to light.
    Comment 6: During the two public hearings in September 2023, 
several fishermen raised concerns about landings being impacted by the 
potential crowding effects outside the MRA Wedge closure, especially in 
late April before Federal waters reopen.
    Response: It is unlikely that this closure will affect trap catches 
due to crowding during the months of February, March, and April, when 
fishing effort is relatively low, or as compared to summer and fall 
months when fishing effort is higher. We examined the VTR data from 
2019 to 2023 and found decreased effort in April 2022 and increased 
effort in April 2023 outside the MRA Wedge within one nautical mile 
(nmi; 1.85 kilometers) to the east of the MRA Wedge closure, an area 
referred to as the Wedge Buffer Zone (see figure 5),\5\ when compared 
to 2019 and 2021.\6\ Throughout the years 2019 to 2023, the total 
reported number of active vessels in the Wedge Buffer Zone in April 
remained relatively low

[[Page 8343]]

when compared to other months (see footnote 4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Because the minimum trawl length in LMA 1 in the area 3-6 
nmi (5.6-11 km) offshore is 10-15 traps, which is approximately a 
trawl length of 1 nmi (1.9 km), if a fisherman is relocating traps 
just outside the MRA Wedge to have easy access to the area when it 
opens, the Wedge Buffer Zone is the most likely area (1 nmi [1.9 km] 
next to the MRA Wedge) for these traps to be placed.
    \6\ During 2020, the pandemic year, most vessels did not fish 
regularly in the spring. Therefore, we did not consider 2020 data to 
be representative or informative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07FE24.034

BILLING CODE 3510-22-C
    In April 2022, the MRA Wedge was closed for the first time under 
the emergency rule (87 FR 11590, March 2, 2022). VTR data showed only 
one vessel in the Wedge Buffer Zone, and the total number of traps 
fished increased slightly, relative to reported effort in March 2022, 
but decreased when compared to April 2019 and 2021. In 2023, the MRA 
Wedge was closed under the emergency rule (88 FR 7362, February 3, 
2023) from February 1 to April 30, 2023. During the emergency closures, 
crowding was not evident. There were few vessels observed in the Wedge 
Buffer Zone in the VTR data (one vessel in February, two vessels in 
March and April 2023). The total number of trips and the total number 
of traps fished increased significantly, but those increased trips were 
from the same fisherman who had been fishing in the Wedge Buffer Zone 
before April 2023.
    While VTR data represent a subset of effort, comparing VTR data 
shows some interannual variability, but does not demonstrate enough 
displaced effort to cause substantial crowding and reduce catch values 
due to the closure. Effort that may have moved was still well below the 
effort that is sustained across LMA 1 Massachusetts waters during the 
times of year, such as late summer, when more fishermen are actively 
fishing. Given the low fishing effort in the Wedge Buffer Zone during 
the emergency closures, NMFS reasonably expects that the fishing effort 
in other nearby and adjacent waters will be similarly low during the 
permanent seasonal closure. Accordingly, we do not anticipate effects 
to landings from crowding outside the MRA Wedge closure.
    Comment 7: The MRA Wedge will make it harder for fishermen to get 
fishing crew to help with harvesting without the option for year-round 
employment. Temporary or seasonal fishing crew are harder to find.
    Response: We recognize that in the past few seasons, the fishing 
industry, like other employers, experienced labor shortages. Based on a 
research study by the Society of Human Resource Management (SHRM 2021), 
nearly 9 in 10 of the organizations surveyed said they were finding it 
difficult to fill certain open positions--especially those at entry 
level--and nearly 7 in 10 organizations believe that the expanded 
COVID-19 unemployment benefits contributed to this difficulty.
    Crew on lobster boats are usually paid based on the harvest, so 
their income is unstable, especially during the winter/spring season 
when there are more severe weather days and lower catch rates. We 
understand from scoping meetings and public hearings that if lobster 
vessels are unable to secure year-round crew at the beginning of the 
year, they might have to offer higher pay to get crew when peak season 
starts. Lobster boats without extra crew would likely fish fewer traps 
and trawls, or

[[Page 8344]]

may make fewer hauls per trip; therefore, they might experience some 
catch reduction and lower revenue.
    As the pandemic has eased, the labor market has gradually returned 
to normal. For example, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 
the Massachusetts unemployment rate dropped from 17 percent in April 
2020 to 3 percent in April 2023. With the labor market stabilizing, we 
do not anticipate that this rule will have a substantial impact on the 
availability of labor. NMFS will continue to consider new information 
that becomes available.
    Comment 8: In many places where affected fishermen reside, there is 
very little opportunity to make income by other means, so the MRA Wedge 
closure will hurt fishermen economically.
    Response: NMFS has considered the reliance of impacted communities 
on lobster fishing and alternative employment opportunities; please see 
section 6 of the associated EA and section 5 of the RIR for our 
detailed analyses. In summary, the Massachusetts counties that are home 
to the affected fishing ports have varying levels of reliance on 
lobster fishing. All offer other fishery and employment opportunities 
for any crew or vessel operators impacted by the expansion of the MRA 
closure area. We note that we considered but did not select a more 
expansive rulemaking (see Alternative 3 in the associated EA), because 
of, among other reasons, its potential adverse economic effects on 
fishermen. The present rule reasonably balances right whale protections 
with economic impacts.
    Comment 9: One commenter requested as much notice as possible 
regarding permanent rulemaking on this matter to provide sufficient 
time for the fishing industry to prepare.
    Response: We recognize the importance of providing sufficient time 
for the fishing industry to prepare for regulatory changes. 
Accordingly, NMFS is providing 30 days' notice before the final rule 
becomes effective, to allow regulated entities to come into compliance. 
This will provide the fishing industry with sufficient time to attain 
compliance by, for example, relocating trap/pot gear from the MRA Wedge 
to dry storage or to waters open to trap/pot fishing.
    Comment 10: One commenter voiced support for implementation of 
Alternative 2 (this rule) for the years 2024 through 2028, with the 
understanding that NMFS would thereafter implement amendments to the 
Plan in accordance with the CAA.
    Response: Subject to new data or circumstances, the MRA Wedge 
addition to the MRA closure is a permanent rulemaking, effective March 
8, 2024. NMFS will comply with the CAA to the full extent of the law.
    Comment 11: Several commenters stated their position that this 
regulation is not allowed under the CAA. Specifically, one or more 
commenters said that the language of the CAA prohibits any additional 
rulemaking that affects the Northeast lobster/Jonah crab fishery 
through the end of 2028; that Congress did not grant NMFS the power to 
transform, or make final, the emergency rule closing the MRA Wedge into 
a permanent rule; and that the 2023 MRA Wedge Closure is not an 
extension of the 2022 MRA Wedge Closure, and therefore was not 
permissible under the CAA.
    Response: These comments misunderstand the CAA. NMFS is 
promulgating this rule pursuant to MMPA section 118. And as explained 
in the regulation's Classification section, this rule falls under the 
CAA's Sec.  101(b) exemption.
    Section 101(a) of the CAA established that from December 29, 2022, 
through December 31, 2028, NMFS' 2021 rule ``shall be deemed sufficient 
to ensure that the continued Federal and State authorizations of the 
American lobster and Jonah crab fisheries are in full compliance'' with 
the MMPA and the ESA. H.R. 2617-1631--H.R. 2617-1632 (Division JJ--
North Atlantic Right Whales, Title I--North Atlantic Right Whales and 
Regulations, Sec.  101(a)). Section 101(a) of the CAA also requires 
NMFS to promulgate new lobster and Jonah crab regulations, consistent 
with the MMPA and ESA, that take effect by December 31, 2028. Id. at 
Sec.  101(a)(2). In Sec.  101(b) of the CAA, however, Congress 
explained that Sec.  101(a) ``shall not apply to an existing emergency 
rule, or any action taken to extend or make final an emergency rule 
that is in place on the date of enactment of this Act, affecting 
lobster and Jonah crab.''
    Under Sec.  101(b), NMFS may use its existing rulemaking authority 
under the MMPA to close the MRA Wedge. Rather than ``misstating'' Sec.  
101(b), as one commenter argued, NMFS is adhering to the text of Sec.  
101(b) and its surrounding context because this regulation ``make[s] 
final'' the 2022 emergency rule. As described in the regulation's 
Background and Classification sections, the 2022 emergency rule is the 
only ``emergency rule'' that Sec.  101(b) could refer to, and it was 
``in place on the date of enactment of the CAA,'' given the continuing 
emergency and NMFS' authority under the MMPA to extend that rule at the 
time of the CAA's enactment. NMFS does not believe, as some commenters 
seem to suggest, that ``in place'' means ``in effect.'' That reading 
would mean the Sec.  101(b) exemption has no effect--it had no effect 
when the CAA was enacted, and it would never have any legal effect, 
since the commenters do not identify any other emergency rule that 
Congress could reasonably have been referencing in Sec.  101(b) (and 
there is none for the reasons explained below). As explained in the 
Classification section below, NMFS declines to adopt a reading of the 
statute that would render Sec.  101(b) meaningless surplusage.
    For further explanation that is responsive to these comments, 
please see the regulation's Background and Classification sections.
    Comment 12: Two commenters claimed that the proposed rule was 
illegal under Maine Lobstermen's Association v. Raimondo, 70 F.4th 582 
(D.C. Circuit 2023) (MLA), stating that the Court determined that the 
underlying science supporting the 2021 rule, and by extension this 
regulation, was invalid based on the Agency's consideration of a 
``worst-case scenario'' in the development of the 2021 Batched 
Fisheries Biological Opinion (2021 BiOp, NMFS 2021b).
    Response: These comments misunderstand MLA. The MLA ruling 
addressed an ESA Section 7 formal consultation (2021 BiOp) conducted by 
NMFS regarding Federal authorization of the lobster fishery. By 
contrast, the 2021 rule underwent a separate and distinct ESA Section 7 
informal consultation, and this regulation falls under the informal 
consultation for the 2021 rule. As explained below in the 
Classification section, this regulation is simply not ``promulgated on 
the basis of the 2021 Biological Opinion,'' as one commenter suggests.
    Moreover, the 2021 rule and this regulation are promulgated under 
the MMPA, not the ESA. The MLA court did not analyze the legal 
standards set forth in the MMPA. While the court vacated the 2021 BiOp, 
the panel explained, ``we are not convinced the error claimed by the 
lobstermen is fatal to the [2021 rule].'' MLA at 601. In any event, 
this regulation applies the best available scientific information 
including recent observational and acoustic detections of right whales; 
does not consider worst-case scenarios; and is supported by its own 
administrative record.
    Comment 13: One commenter argued that NMFS was ``on notice that a 
court of law has already said it is violating the law,'' relying on 
statements that D.C. District Court Chief Judge Boasberg made during a 
February 16, 2023 hearing on a motion for a Temporary

[[Page 8345]]

Restraining Order in Massachusetts Lobstermen's Association, Inc. v. 
NMFS, No. 1:23-cv-00293 (D.D.C.), which challenged the 2023 emergency 
rule extension (i.e., 88 FR 7362). In particular, the commenter quoted 
the following statement: ``I think that the plaintiffs may well have a 
better argument on the merits than the government. It's a close 
question and one that I probably need to think about more. But in the 
time that I have had, I think that Mr. Cragg has probably got a better 
reading of the way--a better interpretation of the exception.''
    Response: Far from ``sa[ying] [NMFS] is violating'' the CAA, the 
court made clear that it was not deciding the correct interpretation of 
the CAA at that hearing. Even the statement quoted by the commenter 
includes the caveat that ``[i]t's a close question and one that [the 
judge] probably need[s] to think about more.'' The court ultimately 
denied Plaintiff's Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order on other 
grounds, and the case was dismissed without briefing or ruling on the 
merits. In any event, we carefully considered these statements and 
determined that the present rulemaking complies with all applicable 
laws.
    Comment 14: One commenter asserted that the 2023 MRA Wedge closure 
was illegal and, therefore, this regulation is illegal.
    Response: We dispute this characterization of the 2023 MRA Wedge 
closure. Independently, as described in the Classification section 
below, we determined that the present rulemaking complies with all 
applicable laws.
    Comment 15: One commenter stated that this rulemaking is occurring 
outside of the traditional Take Reduction Team process.
    Response: The commenter is incorrect; this rulemaking was conducted 
within the Take Reduction Team process. In January 2022, NMFS received 
letters and emails from MA DMF, Stellwagen Bank National Marine 
Sanctuary, and non-governmental organizations expressing concerns about 
the gap in restricted waters and the heightened risk of entanglement 
for right whales during the annual MRA closure period from February 
through April. We brought these letters, and the underlying 
information, to the Team's attention later that same month, in a 
January 2022 Team webinar. State, academic, and non-governmental 
organizations expressed support for including the MRA Wedge in a future 
Plan amendment, while Massachusetts fishing representatives expressed 
concerns about economic impacts during a season when effort is 
generally low and price is sometimes high. The Team discussed the MRA 
Wedge closure as a future possible Plan amendment and determined it was 
worth considering for expedited rulemaking, due to its potential for 
significant risk reduction. In December 2022, a majority of Team 
members voted in favor of recommending several suites of measures that 
included expanding the MRA closure to include the MRA Wedge and waters 
farther north, including Jeffreys Ledge. NMFS considered the Team's 
December 2022 non-consensus recommendations, and, as the agency 
ultimately responsible for ensuring that the requirements of the MMPA 
are met, decided to move forward with promulgating this permanent rule 
and has explained its reasoning for the present rulemaking.
    Comment 16: One commenter noted that Alternative 2 could 
incentivize lobstermen to stage their trap/pot gear just north of the 
MRA Wedge during the month of April while waiting for the MRA to reopen 
on May 1. The commenter suggested that NMFS revise the wet storage 
regulation to require gear to be hauled out of the water at least once 
every 14 days. The commenter proposed that staging gear just outside of 
the restricted areas should be closely monitored and addressed if 
necessary. Another commenter noted that wherever lines are drawn in the 
ocean, there will be gear piling up outside those lines.
    Response: We recognize that some fishermen may wish to ``stage'' 
their gear outside the closures, particularly in April, ahead of the 
May 1 opening of the MRA. It is possible that a change in current 
regulations requiring gear to be hauled and reset every 14 days, rather 
than every 30 days, might encourage the removal of gear to reduce the 
need for offshore trips during winter months. However, such a change 
was not considered in the proposed rule or analyzed in the draft EA. 
Accordingly, it is not being considered for inclusion in this 
rulemaking. In addition, MA DMF explains that gear in the MRA Wedge is 
infrequently hauled and is largely used for wet storage, presumably due 
to the inconvenience of hauling gear on land and, in some cases, the 
lack of storage areas on land. (See Appendix 3.1 in the associated EA 
for Letters of Concern). To address this issue, we recommend that 
fishermen and industry organizations work with partners to locate areas 
where gear can be stored on land during the seasonal closure.
    Comment 17: One commenter questioned whether commercial fishing is 
any more detrimental to whale populations than commercial shipping, now 
that weak rope and weak link requirements have been implemented.
    Response: Weak rope and weak links provide risk reduction benefits 
to right whales because they may allow adult right whales to break the 
lines during an entanglement, reducing the severity of entanglement 
events. However, further protective measures are needed because weak 
rope and weak links do not reduce the number of entanglements, nor do 
they protect right whale calves and young right whales that are not 
strong enough to break free of these lines before mortalities and 
serious injuries occur. To further reduce mortalities and serious 
injuries, we have determined that closures are necessary in areas where 
there is a high co-occurrence of right whales and vertical lines. 
Without a closure, entanglement risk is high in the MRA Wedge from 
February through April, when right whales are present in the area in 
high numbers.
    As the commenter notes, vessel strike risk continues to be of 
concern. The best available scientific information demonstrates that 
reduction of both entanglements and vessel strikes is necessary for 
recovery of the North Atlantic right whale population throughout its 
range, including in the United States and Canada (Runge et al. 2023). 
Commercial shipping activities are outside of the scope of this 
rulemaking.
    Comment 18: Several commenters noted that the continued threat 
posed by the overlap between dense accumulations of gear within the MRA 
Wedge or along the MRA Wedge borders (fencing) and right whale 
aggregations requires a permanent management solution rather than 
consecutive emergency actions.
    Response: With respect to waters within the MRA Wedge, this 
regulation provides a permanent management solution. With respect to 
open waters just outside the MRA Wedge, we assessed the risk of gear 
accumulation, known as a fencing or ``curtain effect,'' in which 
fishermen displaced by the MRA Wedge closure will instead choose to set 
their gear along the perimeter of the closure boundary, in an area 
referred to as the Wedge Buffer Zone (figure 5). As discussed in 
response to Comment 6, we did this by examining Federal VTR data from 
2019 to 2023 to identify trends in fishing effort outside of the MRA 
Wedge following the 2022 and 2023 emergency closures. The data show 
that there was not displaced effort sufficient to cause a curtain 
effect in the Wedge Buffer Zone following the closed periods in 2022 
and 2023 (see subsection 6.2.4 in the associated EA).

[[Page 8346]]

    Nevertheless, not all gear stored in the Wedge Buffer Zone is 
captured by VTR data; more observational data are needed to evaluate 
the extent of wet storage in this area. Still, relative to the fishing 
effort that occurs during more active fishing months such as late 
summer, the amount of gear displaced is low and unlikely to create a 
substantial curtain. At this time, the risk of a curtain effect from 
the MRA Wedge closure is outweighed by the high entanglement risk 
within the MRA Wedge waters from February through April each year if it 
remains open during the MRA closure period.
    Comment 19: Seven commenters expressed support for Alternative 3, 
citing: (1) the need for aggressive action to achieve the MMPA goals of 
reducing incidental mortality and serious injury to below the PBR 
level; (2) additional incentive for fishermen to remove non-actively 
fished gear from the water and store the gear on land, as opposed to 
wet storage in the ocean; (3) concern that Alternative 2 would likely 
lead to pot/trap gear movement north from the MRA Wedge to other areas 
where right, humpback, and fin whales historically have been sighted; 
and (4) the fact that coverage of the entirety of the Stellwagen Bank 
National Marine Sanctuary would provide consistency with the aims of 
the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary Final Management Plan.
    Response: As the commenters noted, Alternative 3 would have greater 
risk reduction benefits for right whales, and potentially also for fin 
and humpback whales, as gear removal reduces risk of entanglements. 
However, Alternative 2 provides a reasonable balance between risk 
reduction and economic impacts as it will substantially reduce the risk 
of right whale entanglement during a critical time period, while 
displacing few fishermen overall and allowing fishermen to continue 
fishing during that time in areas with less risk. This rulemaking does 
not specifically target fin and humpback whales. Nevertheless, NMFS 
concluded that this regulation may benefit fin and humpback whales 
after considering their known distributions and likely effects on gear 
movement (see subsection 6.2 in the associated EA and subsection 5.4 of 
the associated RIR/FRFA). NMFS does not anticipate that this regulation 
will meaningfully increase entanglement risk to right, humpback, and 
fin whales in areas outside the MRA and MRA Wedge.
    With respect to the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary, NMFS 
refers the commenter to the U.S. Congress's mandate in CAA Sec.  101.
    Comment 20: One commenter supported Alternative 3, noting that the 
difference in economic impacts is relatively small (i.e., the 
compliance cost for Alternative 2 is $400 per vessel, compared with 
$2,000 per vessel for Alternative 3). However, the risk reduction is 
higher for Alternative 3 than Alternative 2.
    Response: The difference in per-vessel compliance costs between 
Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 is material. And although the overall 
risk reduction for Alternative 3 is higher than for Alternative 2, the 
cost for each percentage of risk reduction is higher for Alternative 3 
(approximately $30,000-$48,000 per percentage point of risk reduction) 
than for Alternative 2 (approximately $22,000-$40,000 per percentage 
point of risk reduction). In other words, Alternative 3 costs more for 
each percentage of benefit for right whales. While information is not 
available to conduct a full benefit-cost analysis (see subsection 5.4 
of the associated RIR), the cost for each percent of risk reduction 
provides a useful comparison.
    Comment 21: A few commenters suggested that we expand the MRA Wedge 
to apply to all fixed-gear fisheries.
    Response: This rulemaking is limited to trap/pot fishing, the 
fishery operations that deploy approximately 93 percent of all the buoy 
lines in U.S. waters (NMFS 2021a) and represent the vast majority of 
entanglement risk to right whales in the MRA Wedge. Other fixed-gear 
fisheries were not considered for restrictions in the proposed rule so 
their inclusion in this final rule is not proper. NMFS is currently 
working to address the risks posed by other fixed-gear fisheries by 
considering potential new regulations for non-lobster and Jonah crab 
fisheries, based on the Team's December 2022 recommendations. Those 
considerations are ongoing.

Changes From the Proposed Rule

    There are no changes to the final rule.

Classification

    The NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that the final rule 
is consistent with the Plan, with the rulemaking authority under MMPA 
section 118(f), and with other applicable laws including the 
Administrative Procedure Act and the CAA, 2023 (H.R. 2617-1631--H.R. 
2617-1632, Division JJ--North Atlantic Right Whales, Title I--North 
Atlantic Right Whales and Regulations).

Consolidated Appropriations Act

    On December 29, 2022, President Biden signed H.R. 2617, the CAA, 
into law. Section 101(a) of the CAA establishes that from December 29, 
2022, through December 31, 2028, NMFS' September 17, 2021 rule amending 
the Plan, Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental to Commercial Fishing 
Operations; Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan Regulations, 
published at 86 FR 51970 (September 17, 2021), ``shall be deemed 
sufficient to ensure that the continued Federal and State 
authorizations of the American lobster and Jonah crab fisheries are in 
full compliance'' with the MMPA and the ESA. H.R. 2617-1631--H.R. 2617-
1632 (Division JJ--North Atlantic Right Whales, Title I--North Atlantic 
Right Whales and Regulations, Sec.  101(a)). The CAA requires NMFS to 
promulgate new lobster and Jonah crab regulations, consistent with the 
MMPA and ESA, that take effect by December 31, 2028. Id at Sec.  
101(a)(2). Notwithstanding these directions, Sec.  101(b) of the CAA 
provides that Sec.  101(a) shall not apply to ``any action taken to 
extend or make final an emergency rule that is in place on the date of 
enactment of this Act, affecting lobster and Jonah crab.''
    This final rule complies with CAA Sec.  101(b). The ``emergency 
rule'' in Sec.  101(b)'s express exception must refer to the 2022 MRA 
Wedge rule, 87 FR 11590 (March 2, 2022), because there is no other 
``emergency rule'' to which Congress could have been referring. 
Moreover, the 2022 emergency rule was ``in place'' within the meaning 
of that phrase under Sec.  101(b) at the time of the CAA's enactment on 
December 29, 2022, thereby satisfying the conditions for the Sec.  
101(b) exception.
    There is no other ``emergency rule'' that Sec.  101(b)'s exception 
could cover because the 2022 emergency rule is the only emergency 
rulemaking implemented in the past decade under the MMPA, ESA, or any 
other relevant statutes affecting the lobster and Jonah crab fisheries. 
Congress would not reasonably have expected NMFS to issue another 
emergency rule when it was enacting the CAA, or in the short time 
between when Congress passed and the President signed the CAA, which 
would have been insufficient time for emergency rulemaking. That is 
particularly the case because Sec.  101(b) contemplates that NMFS may 
``extend'' or ``make final'' an emergency rule that is in place at the 
time of the CAA's enactment, which indicates that Congress was 
referring to an emergency

[[Page 8347]]

rule that it had notice of, rather than the possibility of a new 
hypothetical rule.
    The 2022 emergency rule was also ``in place on the date of 
enactment of'' the CAA within the meaning of that phrase in Sec.  
101(b). Although the 2022 emergency rule's seasonal closure was 
effective from April 1, 2022, through April 30, 2022, the state of 
emergency necessitating the rule continued, and NMFS was authorized 
under MMPA Sec.  118(g) to extend that rule at the time of the CAA's 
enactment. The 2022 emergency rule closed the MRA Wedge for 30 days 
under MMPA Sec.  118(g)(3). After that 30-day closure, NMFS retained 
authority to extend the 2022 emergency rule for 90 additional days 
under MMPA Sec.  118(g)(4), which allows an extension of an emergency 
rule where ``incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals 
in a commercial fishery is continuing to have an immediate and 
significant adverse impact on a stock or species.'' That was the case 
at the time of the CAA's enactment because, after the 2022 emergency 
rule was no longer in effect, right whales continued to occupy and 
travel through the MRA Wedge annually during February through April, 
while trap/pot fishermen also continued to fish and stage gear there at 
great risk of causing incidental mortality or serious injury by 
entanglement. The MMPA does not require that emergency rule extensions 
are coterminous in time with the original emergency rule.\7\ 
Accordingly, because NMFS was authorized to extend the rule under MMPA 
Sec.  118(g)(4), the 2022 emergency rule was ``in place'' within the 
meaning of the CAA at the time of its enactment, even though the 
seasonal closure required by that rule was no longer in effect. If 
Congress intended to limit CAA Sec.  101(b) to an emergency rule that 
was ``in effect'' on the date of the CAA's enactment, Congress could 
have used that language.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ NMFS does not, however, retain extension authority ad 
infinitum. For example, if the extension is unreasonably attenuated 
from the original emergency rule, an extension is improper. In 
contrast, the 2023 emergency rule extension was a single extension 
that immediately followed the original 2022 emergency rule during 
the subsequent migration season, while all other material features 
of the ongoing emergency remained constant. Moreover, the ongoing 
emergency was seasonal, given the timing of right whale migrations 
in and around the MRA Wedge and the timing of the MRA closure in 
adjacent waters. The 2023 emergency rule extension was, accordingly, 
seasonally consecutive with the 2022 emergency rule. Under the 
emergency rulemaking's applicable facts and circumstances, NMFS 
properly utilized MMPA Sec.  118(g)(4), given the close nexus 
between the 2022 emergency rule and its 2023 emergency rule 
extension.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any other reading of the statute would deprive the Sec.  101(b) 
exception of any legal effect. Commenters objecting to NMFS's reading 
of the CAA did not identify any other emergency rule to which Sec.  
101(b) could reasonably refer, and as explained above, there is no 
other emergency rule that could be subject to Sec.  101(b). NMFS 
declines to adopt a reading of the statute that would render Sec.  
101(b)--one of only two subsections in Sec.  101 of the CAA--
meaningless.
    Based on the foregoing reading of the CAA, NMFS ``extend[ed]'' the 
2022 emergency rule, CAA Sec.  101(b), the following year by closing 
the MRA Wedge from February 1, 2023 through April 30, 2023 to match the 
broader closure of Federal waters in the MRA. This rule seeks to ``make 
final,'' CAA Sec.  101(b), the 2022 emergency rule by incorporating the 
MRA Wedge into the larger MRA boundaries. The final rule is based on 
the scientific evidence demonstrating the annual recurrence of high 
entanglement risk in the MRA Wedge--i.e., direct observations of right 
whales and extensive fishing gear occupying the MRA Wedge annually from 
February through April--and the supporting DST analysis. The final rule 
would therefore ``make final'' the MRA Wedge closure under the Plan, in 
accordance with the MMPA and CAA.

National Environmental Policy Act

    NMFS prepared a Final EA for this rule that discusses the potential 
impacts on the environment of changes to the Plan. In addition to the 
status quo (Alternative 1), two alternatives are analyzed: Alternative 
2 (preferred and the basis of this rule) and Alternative 3. Alternative 
1 (No Action) would maintain the status quo as implemented in 2021. 
Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative) would add the MRA Wedge, 
approximately 200 square miles (518 square kilometers) of Federal 
waters adjacent to the existing MRA, to the MRA during the current 
closure period of February 1 through April 30. (We note that, in 2024, 
the MRA Wedge closure will occur after February 1, due to the 30-day 
delay in effectiveness after publication, to provide adequate notice.) 
Alternative 3 would add approximately 1,297 square miles (3,359 square 
kilometers) to the MRA and extend the northern MRA boundaries up to the 
New Hampshire border during the same time period.
    Alternative 2 is estimated to reduce risk of mortality or serious 
injury from entanglement in trap/pot gear in the Northeast by 
approximately 1.8 to 2.3 percent. Alternative 3 is estimated to reduce 
risk by 3.1 to 5.3 percent. The difference in impact between the two 
alternatives is even greater when considering local risk in the area in 
LMA 1 Massachusetts waters, an area with particularly high entanglement 
risk during the MRA closure months (13 to 16.5 percent risk reduction 
under Alternative 2, compared to 22.6 to 38.3 percent under Alternative 
3). Overall, the economic impacts of Alternative 2 result in an 
estimated total annual cost (including lost revenue) of $339,000 to 
$608,000, with approximately 26 to 31 affected vessels, or $1.7 million 
to $3 million over 5 years. Alternative 3 is estimated to impact 53 to 
66 vessels for an estimated annual cost (including lost revenue) of 
$898,000 to $1,453,000 and an estimated total 5-year cost of $4.5 
million to $7.3 million. The social and economic impacts on the human 
community would decrease year by year as fishermen adapt to the 
restricted area. A copy of the EA is available in the docket or from 
NMFS (see ADDRESSES).

Executive Order 12866--Regulatory Planning and Review

    This final rule has been determined to be not significant for the 
purposes of Executive Order 12866. NMFS has prepared a regulatory 
impact review.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, requires 
agencies to assess the economic impacts of their regulations on small 
entities. The objective of the RFA is to consider the impacts of a 
rulemaking on small entities, and the capacity of those affected by 
regulations to bear the direct and indirect costs of regulation. We 
prepared a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) in support of 
this action, as required by section 603 of the RFA. The FRFA describes 
the economic impact this final rule will have on small entities. 
Although we analyzed an alternative that would close a larger area and 
result in greater risk reduction (see Alternative 3 in the associated 
EA), twice as many small entities would have been affected and each 
risk reduction unit would cost 19 to 32 percent more than the 
alternative implemented under this final rule. While the risk reduction 
estimate for this alternative was higher, it was not selected due to, 
among other reasons, its economic effects on fishermen. The present 
rule reasonably balances right whale protections with economic impacts. 
A description of the action, why it is being considered, and its legal 
basis are contained at the beginning of this section in the preamble 
and in the SUMMARY section of the preamble. A copy of this analysis is 
available in the docket or from NMFS (see ADDRESSES), and a summary 
follows.

[[Page 8348]]

    The FRFA analysis estimates that 1,273 distinct entities had at 
least one LMA 1 Federal lobster permit in 2021, and 39 distinct 
entities were in other trap/pot fisheries. All of them are small 
entities with annual landings value below $11 million. While 
considering the compliance costs for the small entities, it is worth 
noting that the vast majority of the regulated entities are located far 
away from the MRA Wedge so that it would not be economically feasible 
to travel to this area to fish. Therefore, this final rule would 
directly affect relatively few entities that actually fished with 
vertical lines in the MRA Wedge within the past five seasons (2017-
2021). Alternative 2 would affect 26 to 31 entities, with the estimated 
annual compliance costs ranging from $339,000 to $608,000. The 
estimated cost for each entity ranges from $9,500 to $19,100. 
Alternative 3 would affect 53 to 66 entities, and the estimated annual 
compliance costs range from $898,000 to $1,453,000. The estimated cost 
for each entity ranges from $9,900 to $20,500.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This final rule contains no information collection requirements 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

Endangered Species Act

    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. Five subsequent consultations were conducted in 2004, 
2008, 2014, 2015, and 2021, when NMFS amended the Plan. This final rule 
falls within the scope of the analysis conducted in the informal ESA 
Section 7 consultation on the implementation of the Plan (May 25, 
2021), and a separate consultation is not required for this action. 
NMFS, as both the action agency and the consulting agency, reviewed the 
changes and determined that the measures as revised through this 
rulemaking would not affect ESA-listed species under NMFS' jurisdiction 
in a manner that had not been previously considered.
    This final rule is a separate action independent from the 2021 ESA 
Section 7 Consultation on the: (a) Authorization of the American 
Lobster, Atlantic Bluefish, Atlantic Deep-Sea Red Crab, Mackerel/Squid/
Butterfish, Monkfish, Northeast Multispecies, Northeast Skate Complex, 
Spiny Dogfish, Summer Flounder/Scup/Black Sea Bass, and Jonah Crab 
Fisheries and (b) Implementation of the New England Fishery Management 
Council's Omnibus Essential Fish Habitat Amendment 2 (2021 BiOp; NMFS 
2021b). The final rule was not developed during the fisheries 
consultation process that culminated in the 2021 BiOp, and the final 
rule satisfies the ESA and MMPA requirements through a consultation 
that was entirely distinct from the 2021 BiOp. The final rule is not 
associated with the 2021 BiOp and was not analyzed under the 2021 BiOp, 
nor does the 2021 BiOp provide ESA coverage for the final rule.

References

Baumgartner, M.F., F.W. Wenzel, N. S.J. Lysiak and M.R. Patrician. 
2017. North Atlantic right whale foraging ecology and its role in 
human-caused mortality. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 581:165-181.
Ganley, L., S. Brault, and C. Mayo. 2019. What we see is not what 
there is: Estimating North Atlantic right whale Eubalaena glacialis 
local abundance. Endangered Species Research, 38, 101-113.
Ganley, L.C., J. Byrnes, D.E. Pendleton, C.A. Mayo, K.D. Friedland, 
J.V. Redfern, J.T. Turner, and S. Brault. 2022. Effects of changing 
temperature phenology on the abundance of a critically endangered 
baleen whale. Global Ecology and Conservation 38:e02193.
Hayes, S.H., E. Josephson, K. Maze-Foley, J. McCordic, P.E. Rosel, 
and J. Wallace. 2023. US Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Marine Mammal 
Stock Assessments 2022. Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Woods 
Hole, MA.
Hayes, S.A., E. Josephson, K. Maze-Foley and P.E. Rosel. 2019. US 
Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Marine Mammal Stock Assessments--2018. 
Page 306.
Hayes, S.A., E. Josephson, K. Maze-Foley, P.E. Rosel, and J. 
Wallace. 2022. US Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Marine Mammal Stock 
Assessments--2021. Page 387.
Hlista B.L., H.M. Sosik, L.V. Martin Traykovski, R.D. Kenney, M.J. 
Moore. 2009. Seasonal and interannual correlations between right-
whale distribution and calving success and chlorophyll 
concentrations in the Gulf of Maine, USA. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 394:289-
302.
Hudak, C., K. Stamieszkin, and C.A. Mayo. 2023. North Atlantic right 
whale (Eubalaena glacialis) prey selection in Cape Cod Bay. 
Endangered Species Research. 51: 15-29.
Jaquet, N., C.A. Mayo, D. Osterberg, C.L. Browning, and M.K. Marx. 
2007. Surveillance, Monitoring, and Management of North Atlantic 
Right Whales in Cape Cod Bay and Adjacent Waters--2007: Final 
Report. Provincetown Center for Coastal Studies, 260 pp.
Johnson, H., D. Morrison, and C. Taggart C. 2021. WhaleMap: a tool 
to collate and display whale survey results in near real-time. 
Journal of Open Source Software. 6(62): 3094.
Linden, D.W. 2023. Population size estimation of North Atlantic 
right whales from 1990-2022. US Dept Commer Northeast Fish Sci Cent 
Tech Memo 314. 14 p. https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/s3/2023-10/TM314-508-0.pdf.
Mate, B.R., S. Nieukirk and S.D. Kraus. 1997. Satellite-monitored 
movements of the northern right whale. Journal of Wildlife 
Management 61: 1393-1405.
Mayo, C.A., and M.K. Marx. 1990. Surface behavior of the North 
Atlantic right whale, Eubalaena glacialis, and associated 
zooplankton characteristics. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 68:2
Mayo, C.A., L. Ganley, C.A. Hudak, S. Brault, M.K. Marx, E. Burke, 
and M.W. Brown. 2018. Distribution, demography, and behavior of 
North Atlantic right whales (Eubalaena glacialis) in Cape Cod Bay, 
Massachusetts, 1998-2013: Right Whales in Cape Cod Bay. Marine 
Mammal Science. 34:979-996.
NERO PRD NOAA Fisheries Service Northeast Region Protected Resources 
Division. 2012. Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan Monitoring 
Strategy. Page 22. https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/s3/2023-11/5a-ALWTRP-Monitoring-Strategy.pdf.
NMFS. 2021a. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Regulatory Impact 
Review, and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for Amending the 
Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan: Risk Reduction Rule. NOAA, 
National Marine Fisheries Service, Greater Atlantic Regional 
Fisheries Office.
NMFS. 2021b. Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation on the: 
(a) Authorization of the American Lobster, Atlantic Bluefish, 
Atlantic Deep-Sea Red Crab, Mackerel/Squid/Butterfish, Monkfish, 
Northeast Multispecies, Northeast Skate Complex, Spiny Dogfish, 
Summer Flounder/Scup/Black Sea Bass, and Jonah Crab Fisheries and 
(b) Implementation of the New England Fisheries Management Council's 
Omnibus Essential Fish Habitat Amendment 2. NMFS GARFO May 28, 2021.
NMFS. 2022. Environmental Assessment, Finding of No Significance, 
and Regulatory Impact Review for the 2022 Emergency Final Rule to 
Reduce Right Whale Interactions with Lobster and Jonah Crab Trap/Pot 
Gear. NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service, Greater Atlantic 
Regional Fisheries Office.
NMFS. 2023. Environmental Assessment, Finding of No Significance, 
and Regulatory Impact Review for the 2023 Emergency Final Rule to 
Reduce Right Whale Interactions with Lobster and Jonah Crab Trap/Pot 
Gear. NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service, Greater Atlantic 
Regional Fisheries Office.
Pace, R.M., P.J. Corkeron, and S.D. Kraus. 2017. State-space mark-
recapture estimates reveal a recent decline in abundance of North 
Atlantic right

[[Page 8349]]

whales. Ecology and Evolution 7:8730-8741.
Pace, R.M. 2021. Revisions and Further Evaluations of the Right 
Whale Abundance Model: Improvements for Hypothesis Testing. NOAA 
Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-269. Northeast Fisheries Science 
Center, Woods Hole, MA.
Pace, R.M., R. Williams, S.D. Kraus, A.R. Knowlton, and H.M. Pettis. 
2021. Cryptic mortality of North Atlantic right whales. Conservation 
Science and Practice 2021:e346.
Pendleton, D., A. Pershing, M. Brown, C. Mayo, R. Kenney, N. Record, 
and T. Cole. 2009. Regional-scale mean copepod concentration 
indicates relative abundance of North Atlantic right whales. Marine 
Ecology Progress Series, 378, 211-225.
Pendleton, D.E., M.W. Tingley, L.C. Ganley, K.D. Friedland, C. Mayo, 
M.W. Brown, B.E. McKenna, A. Jordaan, and M.D. Staudinger. 2022. 
Decadal[hyphen]scale phenology and seasonal climate drivers of 
migratory baleen whales in a rapidly warming marine ecosystem. 
Global Change Biology, 28(16), 4989-5005.
Plourde, S., C. Lehoux, C.L. Johnson, G. Perrin, and V. Lesage. 
2019. North Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena glacialis) and its food: 
(I) a spatial climatology of Calanus biomass and potential foraging 
habitats in Canadian waters. Journal of Plankton Research 41(5): 
667-685.
Record, N.R., J. Runge, D. Pendleton, W. Balch, K. Davies, A. 
Pershing, C. Johnson, K. Stamieszkin, R. Ji, Z. Feng, S. Kraus, R. 
Kenney, C. Hudak, C. Mayo, C. Chen, J. Salisbury, and C. Thompson. 
2019a. Rapid Climate-Driven Circulation Changes Threaten 
Conservation of Endangered North Atlantic Right Whales. 
Oceanography. 32.
Record, N.R., W.M. Balch, and K. Stamieszkin. 2019b. Century-scale 
changes in phytoplankton phenology in the Gulf of Maine. PeerJ. 
7:e6735.
Roberts, J.J., B.D. Best, L. Mannocci, E. Fujioka, P.N. Halpin, D.L. 
Palka, L.P. Garrison, K.D. Mullin, T.V.N. Cole, C.B. Khan, W.A. 
McLellan, D.A. Pabst, and G.G. Lockhart. 2016a. Habitat-based 
cetacean density models for the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. 
Scientific Reports 6:22615.
Roberts J.J., L. Mannocci, and P.N. Halpin. 2016b. Final Project 
Report: Marine Species Density Data Gap Assessments and Update for 
the AFTT Study Area, 2015-2016 (Base Year). Document version 1.0. 
Report prepared for Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Atlantic 
by the Duke University Marine Geospatial Ecology Lab, Durham, NC.
Roberts J.J. and P.N. Halpin. 2022. North Atlantic right whale v12 
model overview. Duke University Marine Geospatial Ecology Lab, 
Durham, NC.
Roberts J.J., R.S. Schick, P.N. Halpin. 2020. Final Project Report: 
Marine Species Density Data Gap Assessments and Update for the AFTT 
Study Area, 2018-2020 (Option Year 3). Document version 1.4. Report 
prepared for Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Atlantic by the 
Duke University Marine Geospatial Ecology Lab, Durham, NC.
Roberts J.J., R.S. Schick, and P.N. Halpin. 2021. Final Project 
Report: Marine Species Density Data Gap Assessments and Update for 
the AFTT Study Area, 2020 (Option Year 4). Document version 2.2. 
Report prepared for Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Atlantic 
by the Duke University Marine Geospatial Ecology Lab, Durham, NC.
Runge, M.C., D.W. Linden, J.A. Hostetler, D.L. Borggaard, L.P. 
Garrison, A.R. Knowlton, V. Lesage, R. Williams, R.M. Pace III. 
2023. A management-focused population viability analysis for North 
Atlantic right whales. US Dept Commer Northeast Fish Sci Cent Tech 
Memo 307. 93 p.
SHRM. 2021. The COVID-19 Labor Shortage: Exploring the disconnect 
between businesses and unemployed Americans. Online Report accessed 
on Nov 20, 2023.
Slay, C. K. and S.D. Kraus. 1997. Right whale satellite tagging and 
habitat use patterns in the coastal waters of the southeastern 
United States. Final Report to the National Marine Fisheries 
Service, Charleston, South Carolina. 24 pg.
Watkins, W.A., and W.E. Schevill. 1976. Right whale feeding and 
baleen rattle. Journal of Mammalogy. 57:58-66.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 229

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

    Dated: February 1, 2024.
Samuel D. Rauch, III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS amends 50 CFR part 
229 as follows:

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

0
1. The authority citation for 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. Amend Sec.  229.32 by revising paragraph (c)(3)(i) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  229.32  Atlantic large whale take reduction plan regulations.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (i) Area. The Massachusetts Restricted Area is bounded landward by 
the Massachusetts shoreline, from points MRA1 through MRA3 bounded 
seaward by the designated Massachusetts State waters boundary, and then 
bounded by a rhumb line connecting points MRA3 through MRA10 in order 
as detailed in table 11 to this paragraph (c)(3)(i);

                     Table 11 to Paragraph (c)(3)(i)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Point                     N Lat.              W Long.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MRA1............................  42[deg]52.32'       70[deg]48.98'
MRA2............................  42[deg]52.58'       70[deg]43.94'
MRA3............................  42[deg]39.77'       70[deg]30'
MRA4............................  42[deg]30'          70[deg]30'
MRA5............................  42[deg]30'          69[deg]45'
MRA6............................  41[deg]56.5'        69[deg]45'
MRA7............................  41[deg]21.5'        69[deg]16'
MRA8............................  41[deg]15.3'        69[deg]57.9'
MRA9............................  41[deg]20.3'        70[deg]00'
MRA10...........................  41[deg]40.2'        70[deg]00'
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2024-02438 Filed 2-6-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P