12282 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

meaningful analysis and will be subject 

later to the NEPA process, either 

collectively or on a case-by-case basis’’) 

of the Companion Manual and we have 

not identified any extraordinary 

circumstances listed in Chapter 4 of the 

Companion Manual for NAO 216–6A 

that would preclude application of this 

categorical exclusion. If NMFS takes a 

management action, for example, 

through the development of a TRP, 

NMFS would first prepare an 

Environmental Impact Statement or 

Environmental Assessment, as required 

under NEPA, specific to that action. 

This rule would not affect species 

listed as threatened or endangered 

under the ESA or their associated 

critical habitat. The impacts of 

numerous fisheries have been analyzed 

in various biological opinions, and this 

rule will not affect the conclusions of 

those opinions. The classification of 

fisheries on the LOF is not considered 

to be a management action that would 

adversely affect threatened or 

endangered species. If NMFS takes a 

management action, for example, 

through the development of a TRP, 

NMFS would consult under ESA section 

7 on that action. 

This rule would have no adverse 

impacts on marine mammals and may 

have a positive impact on marine 

mammals by improving knowledge of 

marine mammals and the fisheries 

interacting with marine mammals 

through information collected from 

observer programs, stranding and 

sighting data, or take reduction teams. 

This rule would not affect the land or 

water uses or natural resources of the 

coastal zone, as specified under section 

307 of the Coastal Zone Management 

Act. 

References 

Baird, R.W., S.D. Mahaffy, A.M. Gorgone, T. 

Cullins, D.J. McSweeney, E.M. Oelson, 

A.L. Bradford, J. Barlow, D.L. Webster. 

2014. False Killer Whales and Fisheries 

Interaction in Hawaiian Waters: 

Evidence for Sex Bias and Variation 

Among Populations and Social Groups. 

Marine Mammal Science 31(2): 579–590. 

Bradford, A.L., E.M. Oleson, R.W. Baird, C.H. 

Boggs, K.A. Forney, and N.C. Young. 

2015. Revised stock boundaries for false 

killer whales (Pseudorca crassidens) in 

Hawaiian waters. U.S. Department. 

Commerce, NOAA Technical 

Memorandum. NOAA–NMFS–PIFSC–47, 

29p. 

Carretta, J.W., E.M. Oleson, K.A. Forney, 

M.M. Muto, D.W. Weller, A.R. Lang, J. 

Baker, B. Hanson, A.J. Orr, J. Barlow, J.E. 

Moore, and R.L. Brownell. 2023. U.S. 

Pacific Marine Mammal Stock 

Assessments: 2022. U.S. Department of 

Commerce. NOAA Technical 

Memorandum NMFS–SWFSC–684. 409 

p. 

Carretta, J.W., J. Greenman, K. Wilkinson, L. 

Saez, D. Lawson and J. Viezbicke. 2023a. 

Sources of Human-Related Injury and 

Mortality for U.S. Pacific West coast 

Marine Mammal Stock Assessments, 

2017–2021. U.S. Department of 

Commerce. NOAA Technical 

Memorandum NMFS–SWFSC–690. 225 

p. 

Carretta, J.W., E.M. Oleson, K.A. Forney, 

M.M. Muto, D.W. Weller, A.R. Lang, J. 

Baker, B. Hanson, A.J. Orr, J. Barlow, J.E. 

Moore, and R.L. Brownell. 2022. U.S. 

Pacific Marine Mammal Stock 

Assessments: 2021. U.S. Department of 

Commerce, NOAA Technical 

Memorandum NMFS–SWFSC–663. 395 

p. 

Young, N.C, M.M. Muto, V.T. Helker, B.J. 

Delean, N.C. Young, J.C. Freed R.P. 

Angliss, N.A. Friday, P.L. Boveng, J.M. 

Breiwick, B.M. Brost, M.F. Cameron, P.J. 

Clapham, J.L. Crance, S.P. Dahle, M.E. 

Dahlheim, B.S. Fadely, M.C. Ferguson, 

L.W. Fritz, K.T. Goetz, R.C. Hobbs, Y.V. 

Ivashchenko, A.S. Kennedy, J.M. 

London, S.A. Mizroch, R.R. Ream, E.L. 

Richmond, K.E.W. Shelden, K.L. 

Sweeney, R.G. Towell, P.R. Wade, J.M. 

Waite, and Alexandre N. Zerbini. 2023. 

Alaska Marine Mammal Stock 

Assessments 2022. U.S. Department of 

Commerce. NOAA Technical 

Memorandum NMFS–AFSC–474, 316 p. 

Dated: February 9, 2024. 

Samuel D. Rauch, III, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator for 

Regulatory Programs, National Marine 

Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2024–03013 Filed 2–15–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 600 

[Docket No. 240212–0045] 

RIN 0648–BL70 

Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; 

Prohibition of Commercial Fishing in 

the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts 

Marine National Monument 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This action implements 

regulations for the Northeast Canyons 

and Seamounts Marine National 

Monument. This action is necessary to 

conform U.S. fishing regulations to be 

consistent with Presidential 

Proclamations 9496 and 10287, which 

prohibited commercial fishing in the 

Northeast Canyons and Seamounts 

Marine National Monument and 

directed the Secretaries of Commerce 

and Interior to promulgate regulations 

necessary for the proper care and 

management of the Monument. The 

measures herein are intended to define 

the boundary coordinates of the 

Monument area and clarify the 

prohibition on commercial fishing in 

the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

(Magnuson-Stevens Act) regulations. 

DATES: Effective March 18, 2024. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Laura Deighan, Fishery Management 

Specialist, 978–281–9184. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On September 15, 2016, the Northeast 

Canyons and Seamounts Marine 

Monument was designated in the waters 

of the North Atlantic (Presidential 

Proclamation 9496; 81 FR 65161, 

September 21, 2016), to include both a 

Canyons Unit and a Seamounts Unit. 

This Proclamation prohibited 

commercial fishing within the 

Monument, with a 7-year exemption for 

the American lobster and Atlantic deepsea red crab fisheries. In June 2020, 

Monument prohibitions were revised 

via Proclamation 10049 (85 FR 35793, 

June 11, 2020) removing commercial 

fishing from the list of prohibited 

activities set forth in the 2016 

Proclamation. Most recently, in October 

2021, Proclamation 10287 (86 FR 57349, 

October 15, 2021) restored commercial 

fishing to the list of prohibited 

activities, providing ‘‘for the prohibition 

of all commercial fishing in the 

Monument, except for red crab and 

American lobster commercial fishing, 

which may be permitted until 

September 15, 2023.’’ 

Approved Measures 

Consistent with Proclamation 10287 

(68 FR 57349, October 15, 2021) and the 

requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act, this action defines the boundary 

coordinates of the Monument area in the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act regulations at 50 

CFR 600.10. Tables 1 and 2 below 

include coordinates for the Canyons and 

Seamounts Units. 

TABLE 1—CANYONS UNIT

COORDINATES

Point N Latitude W Longitude 

1 ................... 40°31.62′ 68°16.08′ 

2 ................... 40°36.00′ 67°37.68′ 

3 ................... 40°12.42′ 67°34.68′ 

4 ................... 40°7.32′ 68°12.72′ 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 12283 

TABLE 1—CANYONS UNIT

COORDINATES—Continued 

Point N Latitude W Longitude 

1 ................... 40°31.62′ 68°16.08′ 

TABLE 2—SEAMOUNTS UNIT

COORDINATES

Point N Latitude W Longitude 

1 ................... 40°2.64′ 67°43.32′ 

2 ................... 39°56.34′ (a) 

3 ................... 38°51.90′ (b) 

1 ................... 40°2.64′ 67°43.32′ 

a U.S. exclusive economic zone (EEZ) longitude, approximately 65°56.58′. b U.S. EEZ longitude, approximately 

66°55.86′. 

This rule also reflects Proclamation 

10287’s prohibition on commercial 

fishing within the boundaries of the 

Monument in the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act prohibitions at § 600.725 and 

clarifies that commercial fishermen may 

transit through the Monument if fishing 

gear is stowed and not available for 

immediate use during passage through 

the Monument. 

Comments and Responses 

We published a proposed rule in the 

Federal Register on October 19, 2023 

(88 FR 72038), soliciting public 

comment. The comment period ended 

on November 20, 2023. We received a 

total of 11,640 comments submitted by 

6 individual commercial and 

recreational fishermen; 2 academics and 

researchers; 11,589 members of the 

public; and 40 environmental, 2 

commercial fishing, and 1 legal 

organization. One comment related to 

wind development, which is not the 

subject of this action, and is not 

discussed further. A more detailed 

summary of the relevant comments and 

our responses is provided below. 

Establishment of the Monument and Its 

Commercial Fishing Prohibition 

Comment 1: A total of seven 

commenters—four individual 

fishermen, two members of the public, 

and one commercial fishing 

organization—expressed general 

opposition to the action because (1) the 

commercial fishing prohibition results 

in the loss of an important fishing 

ground; (2) the commercial fishing 

prohibition will have a negative impact 

on fisheries in general or on pelagic 

longline and highly migratory species 

fisheries specifically; (3) the loss of 

fishing opportunity for species managed 

multilaterally by the International 

Commission for the Conservation of 

Atlantic Tunas may result in reductions 

of U.S. quota, reallocated to countries 

with less sustainable management; (4) 

the commercial fishing prohibition gives 

exclusive access to recreational 

fisheries, and the area should either be 

closed or open to all fisheries without 

any exceptions; (5) recreational fisheries 

do not have the same level of 

monitoring as commercial fisheries; (6) 

marine protected areas are the least 

effective fisheries management tool and 

fail to recognize biology and ecology, 

are not adaptive, and force vessels to 

fish in less desirable areas; (7) fisheries 

that do not interact with benthic habitat 

and/or that have sufficient monitoring 

in place should be allowed to fish in the 

Monument; (8) ‘‘objects of historic or 

scientific interest,’’ which the 

Antiquities Act of 1906 (54 U.S.C. 

320301–320303) was established to 

protect, does not include living marine 

resources; (9) the Monument does not 

represent the ‘‘smallest area 

compatible’’ with the proper care and 

management of the objects the 

Monument was established to protect, 

as required under the Antiquities Act; 

(10) the Monument does not provide 

proper care and management of highly 

migratory species, which have a much 

larger range than the Monument; (11) 

the establishment of the Monument was 

not based on the best scientific 

information available; and (12) the 

commercial fishing prohibition poses 

prosecution risk to members of industry 

if gear drifts, and vessels will not be 

able to set gear near the Monument 

because of this risk. 

A total of 11,627 commenters—11,584 

members of the public, 2 individual 

fishermen, 1 individual researcher, and 

40 environmental organizations— 

expressed general support for the 

Monument for reasons including the 

Monument is a relatively small area, it 

is a unique area, it is in need of 

protection, it supports sustainable 

fisheries, and it balances conservation 

and economics. One comment further 

stated that the Monument should be 

fully protected and all fishing activity 

should be prohibited within its 

boundaries. 

Response: These comments address 

the establishment of the Monument and 

its associated commercial fishing 

prohibition, which were implemented 

through Presidential Proclamations 

10287 and 9496. NMFS does not 

establish, initiate, or control the marine 

monument process. Under the 

Antiquities Act, the President 

establishes marine monuments and 

makes the final decision on what is 

protected and what uses will be 

restricted upon establishment. 

Monument Management Plan 

Comment 2: Two comments 

submitted by commercial fishing 

organizations criticize the development 

of the draft Management Plan, the lack 

of public involvement in its 

development, and the likelihood of its 

development having a substantial cost 

and little benefit. 

Response: This rulemaking is separate 

and distinct from the development of 

the draft Management Plan. Further, 

NMFS is not primarily responsible for 

the Management Plan’s development. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is 

the lead agency responsible for the draft 

Management Plan. 

Legal Basis and Procedures 

Comment 3: One comment submitted 

by an organization asserts that NMFS’ 

prohibition on commercial fishing in an 

area of the Atlantic Ocean is based on 

an ‘‘illegal’’ Presidential Proclamation 

issued under the Antiquities Act. The 

comment states that the Proclamation 

exceeds the President’s authority under 

the Antiquities Act and violates the U.S. 

Constitution’s separation of powers. 

Thus, it argues that any agency action, 

including this action seeking to include 

the Monument and the commercial 

fishing prohibition in the MagnusonStevens Act regulations, is, among other 

legal flaws, arbitrary, capricious, and 

not in accordance with law. Further, it 

asserts that the Monument’s prohibition 

on commercial fishing is outside the 

President’s authority under the 

Antiquities Act and that any agency 

action, including this rulemaking, taken 

in furtherance of the Monument 

designation would violate the 

Administrative Procedure Act (APA). 

Response: The Monument 

Proclamations 9496 and 10287 are 

within the President’s authority under 

the Antiquities Act, and this rule is 

consistent with the APA. NMFS is an 

agency of the Executive Branch and thus 

is required to comply with directives 

from the President. The President 

prohibited commercial fishing in the 

Monument in the most recent 

Proclamation, Proclamation 10287. The 

Proclamation further directs NMFS to 

implement the existing prohibition on 

commercial fishing within the 

Monument. 

Section 305(d) of the MagnusonStevens Act provides that ‘‘The 

Secretary shall have general 

responsibility to carry out any fishery 

management plan (FMP) or amendment 

approved or prepared by him, in 

accordance with the provisions of this 

Act. The Secretary may promulgate such 

regulations, in accordance with section 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
12284 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

553 of Title 5, United States Code, as 

may be necessary to discharge such 

responsibility or to carry out any other 

provision of this Act’’ (emphasis added). 

NMFS is responding to a change in 

law stemming from the Antiquities Act. 

Proclamation 10287’s prohibition on 

commercial fishing is ‘‘existing law,’’ 

and section 303(a)(1)(C) of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act requires FMPs to 

be ‘‘consistent with . . . any other 

applicable law.’’ (Emphasis added). 

Including the prohibition against fishing 

in the Monument in the MagnusonStevens Act regulations is consistent 

with existing law established by the 

Proclamation. It should be noted that 

both the New England and Mid-Atlantic 

Fishery Management Councils were 

invited to act to implement the 

Proclamation’s prohibition on 

commercial fishing, and both declined. 

Comment 4: One comment, submitted 

by a legal organization, states that the 

rule seeks to ‘‘conform’’ MagnusonStevens Act regulations to the 

Proclamation’s commercial fishing 

prohibition within the Monument but, 

the commenter states, to prohibit 

commercial fishing under the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS must 

conform to the statutory requirements 

enacted by Congress in the MagnusonStevens Act. The commenter believes 

NMFS has ‘‘ignored its duty and 

provided no analysis under the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act. Thus, the rule 

is, among other legal flaws, arbitrary, 

capricious, and not in accordance with 

law.’’ A second comment, submitted by 

a commercial fishing organization, 

similarly stated that the rule should 

have included Magnuson-Stevens Act 

process requirements and National 

Standard considerations. 

Response: Proclamation 10287 

prohibited commercial fishing in the 

Monument on October 8, 2021. The 

prohibition went into effect 

immediately (with exceptions for red 

crab and lobster fishing until September 

15, 2023). 

As discussed above, the use of 

Magnuson-Stevens Act section 305(d) is 

necessary to ensure FMPs are consistent 

with all applicable law, in accordance 

with section 303(a)(1)(C). In addition, 

the placement of these regulations in the 

overarching Magnuson-Stevens Act 

regulations at part 600 ensures that all 

existing and future FMPs (i.e., not solely 

Greater Atlantic Region management 

plans) conform to section 303(a)(1)(C)’s 

mandate that plans are consistent with 

other applicable law. 

This action is not discretionary and 

this rule does not impose a restriction 

or prohibition on commercial fishing in 

the Monument. The restriction and 

prohibition on commercial fishing 

within the Monument exists even in the 

absence of this rule. This rule is 

necessary to document within 

regulation the boundary coordinates of 

the Monument area so that the fishing 

industry and public can be informed as 

to the location of the Monument in 

order to comply with the commercial 

fishing prohibition. This rule is also 

necessary to document the prohibition 

on commercial fishing within the 

Monument and to ensure the 

commercial fishing industry and public 

are aware that commercial fishing 

vessels may transit the Monument 

provided that all fishing gear is stowed 

and unavailable for immediate use. This 

rule serves to ensure the commercial 

fishing industry has the information 

necessary to comply with the provisions 

of the Proclamation without being 

overburdened either due to uncertainty 

as to the boundary coordinates of the 

Monument area or uncertainty regarding 

whether transiting the Monument is 

authorized. 

Comment 5: Four comments 

submitted by environmental 

organizations expressed support for the 

inclusion of the Monument commercial 

fishing prohibition into the MagnusonStevens Act regulations. Three of the 

four comments provided the reasoning 

that the action fulfills the requirement 

in section 303(a)(1)(C) that FMPs be 

consistent with other applicable laws, in 

this case the Antiquities Act and 

Presidential Proclamations 10287 and 

9496. Two of them provided further 

rationale that the action is consistent 

with section 305(d) of the MagnusonStevens Act. One of the comments did 

not provide further reasoning. 

Response: NMFS agrees that section 

303(a)(1)(C) of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act requires FMPs to be consistent with 

other applicable laws and is 

implementing this action under the 

Secretarial authority at section 305(d). 

Comment 6: One comment from a 

legal organization states that this 

rulemaking skirts NMFS’ duty to 

conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(RFA). When an agency publishes a 

general notice of proposed rulemaking, 

the RFA usually requires the agency to 

prepare and make available for public 

comment an initial regulatory flexibility 

analysis (IRFA), which describes the 

effect a proposed rule will have on 

small entities. The commenter asserts 

that the lack of an IRFA for this 

proposed rule violates the RFA because 

it is based on the President’s illegal 

action to prohibit commercial fishing in 

the Monument. 

Response: The RFA generally requires 

that, when an agency publishes a 

proposed rule, as NMFS has done here, 

it must also ‘‘prepare and make 

available for public comment’’ an IRFA, 

that describes ‘‘the impact of the 

proposed rule on small entities’’ and 

also seek out and describe less 

burdensome alternatives to the 

proposed rule. However, because the 

Monument has been closed to 

commercial fishing by Proclamation 

10287 since October 2021, this rule will 

have no additional effect on regulated 

entities beyond what is already in place. 

Moreover, the Proclamation’s directive 

to NMFS to implement the commercial 

fishing prohibition gives the agency no 

discretion to consider or implement any 

alternatives. Therefore, NMFS cannot 

describe less burdensome alternatives to 

implementing the existing prohibition 

on commercial fishing, because there 

are no less burdensome alternatives. 

While NMFS did not prepare an 

IRFA, it did comply with the RFA. 

Section 605(b) of the RFA indicates that 

the preparation of an IRFA or final 

regulatory flexibility analysis is not 

required for rules that ‘‘will not, if 

promulgated, have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities,’’ as certified 

by the head of the agency. In such cases, 

the agency is required to publish the 

certification, along with the factual basis 

for the certification, in the Federal 

Register with the notice of proposed 

rulemaking or the final rule. The 

proposed rule included the factual basis 

for this determination, as certified to the 

SBA Office of Advocacy by the Chief 

Counsel for Regulation of the 

Department of Commerce, which 

demonstrates that while entities will be 

subject to this action, they are already 

subject to the commercial fishing 

prohibition, and, therefore, this action 

has no additional effect on these 

regulated entities. 

Comment 7: One comment from a 

commercial fishing organization states 

that taking this action pursuant to an 

Executive Order citing the Antiquities 

Act, instead of using the processes 

established in the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act for closures and other actions, and 

the lack of any analysis under the 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA), are ‘‘the antithesis of good 

governance’’ and decries the lack of 

public involvement. However, the 

comment goes on to state: ‘‘We 

understand that NMFS has no discretion 

regarding this action; in fact, the docket 

clearly articulates this: ‘Because this 

action serves to bring the MagnusonStevens Act regulations into compliance 

with Presidential Proclamations 9496 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 12285 

and 10287, there is no decision-making 

process for NMFS. NMFS has no 

discretion. As a result, there is no 

decision-making process, no alternatives 

to comply with the Proclamations, and 

no public involvement in the decision. 

There is no ‘‘proposal’’ for action, as 

defined in section 1501.1(a)(5) of the 

Council on Environmental Quality 

regulations implementing the NEPA. 

Therefore, NEPA does not apply to this 

action.’ We understand this and 

therefore cannot argue against NMFS 

compliance with the Executive Orders 

as detailed in the Proposed Rule.’’ 

Response: We agree with these 

comments regarding NMFS’ lack of 

discretion in proposing this rule in 

compliance with the Proclamations’ 

requirements. The President established 

the Monument and prohibited fishing in 

the Monument. 

Economic Impacts of the Monument 

and This Action 

Comment 8: We received one 

comment from an individual researcher 

and two comments from environmental 

organizations related to the impacts of 

the Monument that, based on analyses 

submitted as part of one comment, there 

is little evidence that the commercial 

fishing prohibition had significant 

economic impacts on commercial 

fisheries. The two environmental 

organizations also commented that the 

inclusion of the commercial fishing 

prohibition into the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act regulations would not have 

additional effects on regulated entities 

because the area is already closed to 

commercial fishing by Presidential 

Proclamations 10287 and 9496. 

Response: NMFS agrees that this 

action will have no additional effect on 

regulated entities because fishing was 

previously prohibited in the Monument. 

Opportunities for Public Participation 

Comment 9: One environmental 

organization noted that the Monument 

process has included several 

opportunities for public participation, 

including the comment period on this 

rulemaking and additional comment 

periods related to the Monument (e.g., 

prior to its designation, throughout the 

development of a management plan, at 

New England Fishery Management 

Council meetings). 

Response: This rulemaking included 

an opportunity for public participation 

through the publication of a proposed 

rule in the Federal Register on October 

19, 2023 (88 FR 72038), soliciting public 

comment. The comment period ended 

on November 20, 2023. Other actions, 

including the Monument’s 

establishment through Presidential 

Proclamation 9496 and the development 

of a management plan and public input 

submitted in response to those actions 

are separate and distinct from this 

rulemaking. 

Requests for Additional Information 

Comment 10: Two comments 

submitted by members of the public 

asked how the fishing prohibition 

would be enforced, in general or in 

regard to foreign fishing fleets. 

Response: The commercial fishing 

prohibition in the Monument will be 

enforced with the same resources and 

tools that are used to enforce other 

existing closures and gear-restricted 

areas, including enforcement patrols 

and vessel monitoring and reporting 

requirements. 

Comment 11: One member of the 

public stated that the reason for the 7- 

year phase-out for lobster and red crab 

is unclear and asked whether there 

would be regulations limiting the 

number of lobster and crab pots and 

specifying the type of rope used in the 

Monument for these fisheries. 

Response: The 7-year phase-out for 

lobster and red crab was established by 

Presidential Proclamations 9496 and 

10287. Under the Antiquities Act, the 

President establishes marine 

monuments and makes the final 

decision on what is protected and what 

uses will be restricted upon 

establishment. NMFS does not establish, 

initiate, or control the marine 

monument process. Presidential 

Proclamation 10287 established 

September 15, 2023, as the end of the 

phase-out period, and all commercial 

fishing is currently prohibited in the 

Monument by Presidential 

Proclamation. This action adds the 

commercial fishing prohibition within 

the Monument to the list of prohibited 

activities at § 600.725 and does not 

make any exceptions or differing 

regulations for the lobster or red crab 

fisheries. While lobster and Jonah crab 

are managed under the Atlantic Coastal 

Fisheries Cooperative Management Act 

with implementing regulations at part 

697, this action applies to the lobster 

and Jonah crab fisheries. The definitions 

(§ 697.2(a)) and prohibitions for lobster 

(§ 697.7(c)(1)) and Jonah crab 

(§ 697.7(h)) state that the MagnusonStevens Act definitions at § 600.10 and 

prohibitions at § 600.725 are also 

applicable to these fisheries. 

Comment 12: One member of the 

public commented that it is unclear why 

NEPA didn’t apply, as a ‘‘proposal’’ is 

being made and a change in activities 

allowed is also being implemented. 

Response: Section 1501.1(a)(d) of the 

Council on Environmental Quality 

regulations implementing NEPA states 

that an agency should consider 

‘‘whether the proposed activity or 

decision, in whole or in part, is a nondiscretionary action for which the 

agency lacks authority to consider 

environmental effects as part of its 

decision-making process’’ when 

determining whether NEPA applies. 

NMFS does not establish, initiate, or 

control the marine monument process. 

The President established the 

Monument under the Antiquities Act 

and made the final decision on what is 

protected and what uses are restricted 

within the Monument. Because this 

action serves to bring the MagnusonStevens Act regulations into compliance 

with Presidential Proclamations 9496 

and 10287, there is no decision-making 

process for NMFS. NMFS has no 

discretion. Therefore, NEPA does not 

apply to this action. 

Requests for Additions to the 

Administrative Record 

Comment 13: One comment from an 

individual researcher requested that the 

administrative record include three 

scientific analyses of fishing activity in 

the Monument (Lynham, J., Fishing 

Activity Before Closure, During Closure, 

and After Reopening of the Northeast 

Canyons and Seamounts Marine 

National Monument. Sci. Reports 12, 1– 

21 (2022).; Lynham, J., The Northeast 

Canyons & Seamounts Marine National 

Monument and the Atlantic Deep-Sea 

Red Crab Fishery, Unpublished, 1–14.; 

Lynham, J., The Northeast Canyons & 

Seamounts Marine National Monument 

and the Atlantic Lobster Fishery, 

Unpublished, 1–15.) and one comment 

from a commercial fishing organization 

requested that it include comments it 

previously submitted in response to a 

Notice of Intent to Conduct Scoping and 

to Prepare a Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement for the Proposed Hudson 

Canyon National Marine Sanctuary (87 

FR 34853, June 8, 2022) and a Review 

of Certain National Monuments 

Established Since 1996; Notice of 

Opportunity for Public Comment (82 FR 

22016, May 11, 2017) and two scientific 

publications (Hampton J, Lehodey P, 

Senina I, Nicol S, Scutt Phillips J and 

Tiamere K (2023), Limited Conservation 

Efficacy of Large-scale Marine Protected 

Areas for Pacific Skipjack and Bigeye 

Tunas. Front. Mar. Sci. 9:1060943. doi: 

10.3389/fmars.2022.1060943. Hilborn, 

R., Kaiser, M.J., A Path Forward for 

Analysing the Impacts of Marine 

Protected Areas. Nature 607, E1–E2 

(2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586- 

022-04775-1). 

Response: As comments, including 

attachments and hyperlinked references, 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
12286 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 33 / Friday, February 16, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

are part of the administrative record, the 

subject analyses and comments have 

been added to the administrative record 

for this action. 

Classification 

NMFS is issuing this rule pursuant to 

section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act to comply with section 303(a)(1)(C) 

by promulgating regulations (at 

§§ 600.10 and 600.725) to ensure that all 

FMPs implemented by the Secretary of 

Commerce are consistent with, and 

conform to, the Proclamations and the 

Antiquities Act by ensuring clearly 

articulated measures that apply to all 

commercial fishing vessels operating in 

the EEZ. The NMFS Assistant 

Administrator has determined that this 

rule is consistent with other applicable 

law. 

Because this action serves to bring the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act regulations into 

compliance with Presidential 

Proclamations 9496 and 10287, there is 

no decision-making process for NMFS. 

NMFS has no discretion. As a result, 

there is no decision-making process, no 

alternatives to comply with the 

Proclamations, and no public 

involvement in the decision. There is no 

‘‘proposal’’ for action, as defined in 

section 1501.1(a)(5) of the Council on 

Environmental Quality regulations 

implementing NEPA. Therefore, NEPA 

does not apply to this action. 

This rule has been determined not to 

be significant for purposes of Executive 

Order 12866. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

The Chief Counsel for Regulation of 

the Department of Commerce certified 

to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 

Small Business Administration during 

the proposed rule stage that this action 

would not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. The factual basis for the 

certification was published in the 

proposed rule and is not repeated here. 

We received one comment regarding 

requirements under the RFA. The 

comment did not contest the factual 

basis for the certification. As a result, a 

regulatory flexibility analysis was not 

required and none was prepared. 

This rule contains no information 

collection requirements under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 600 

Fisheries, Fishing. 

Dated: February 13, 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 

600 to read as follows: 

PART 600—MAGNUSON–STEVENS 

ACT PROVISIONS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 600 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 561 and 16 U.S.C. 1801 

et seq. 

■ 2. In § 600.10, add the definition for 

‘‘Northeast Canyons and Seamounts 

Marine National Monument’’ as follows: 

§ 600.10 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Northeast Canyons and Seamounts 

Marine National Monument means the 

area designated by Presidential 

Proclamation 9496, consisting of: 

(1) Canyons Unit. The Canyons Unit 

is defined by the area bounded by 

straight lines connecting the following 

points, in the order stated: 

Point N Latitude W Longitude 

1 ................... 40°31.62′ 68°16.08′ 

2 ................... 40°36.00′ 67°37.68′ 

3 ................... 40°12.42′ 67°34.68′ 

4 ................... 40°7.32′ 68°12.72′ 

1 ................... 40°31.62′ 68°16.08′ 

(2) Seamounts Unit. The Seamounts 

Unit is defined by the area bounded by 

straight lines connecting the following 

points, except between points 1 and 2, 

where the boundary follows the outer 

limits of the U.S. EEZ: 

Point N Latitude W Longitude 

1 ...... 40°2.64′ .............. 67°43.32′ 

2 ...... 39°56.34′ ............ (a) 

3 ...... 38°51.90′ ............ (b) 

1 ...... 40°2.64′ .............. 67°43.32′ 

a U.S. EEZ longitude, approximately 

65°56.58′. b U.S. EEZ longitude, approximately 

66°55.86′. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. In § 600.725, add paragraph (x) to 

read as follows: 

§ 600.725 General prohibitions. 

* * * * * 

(x) Fish for commercial purposes 

within the Northeast Canyons and 

Seamounts Marine National Monument, 

as defined in § 600.10, consistent with 

Presidential Proclamations 9496 and 

10287. Fishing for commercial purposes 

means fishing that is intended to, or 

results in, the barter, trade, transfer, or 

sale of fish, either in whole or in part. 

(1) Vessels may transit the Northeast 

Canyons and Seamounts Marine 

National Monument, provided 

commercial fishing gear is stowed and 

not available for immediate use during 

passage without interruption through 

the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts 

Marine National Monument. 

(2) [Reserved] 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2024–03247 Filed 2–15–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1