Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2022 / Notices 2139 

ii. may enhance the security of the 

Internet of Things, including the 

security of critical infrastructure; 

iii. may protect users of the Internet 

of Things; and 

iv. may encourage coordination 

among Federal agencies with 

jurisdiction over the Internet of Things; 

e. the opportunities and challenges 

associated with the use of Internet of 

Things technology by small businesses; 

and 

f. any international proceeding, 

international negotiation, or other 

international matter affecting the 

Internet of Things to which the United 

States is or should be a party. 

The Board shall submit to the Internet 

of Things Federal Working Group a 

report that includes any of its findings 

or recommendations. The report will be 

administratively delivered to the 

Internet of Things Federal Working 

Group through the Director of the 

National Institute of Standards and 

Technology (NIST). 

The Board shall set its own agenda in 

carrying out its duties. The Federal 

Working Group may suggest topics or 

items for the Board to study, and the 

Board shall take those suggestions into 

consideration in carrying out its duties. 

The Board will function solely as an 

advisory body, in accordance with the 

provisions of FACA. 

Membership: Members of the Board 

shall be appointed by the Secretary. The 

Board shall consist of 16 members 

representing a wide range of 

stakeholders outside of the Federal 

Government with expertise relating to 

the Internet of Things, including: (i) 

Information and communications 

technology manufacturers, suppliers, 

service providers, and vendors; (ii) 

subject matter experts representing 

industrial sectors other than the 

technology sector that can benefit from 

the Internet of Things, including the 

transportation, energy, agriculture, and 

health care sectors; (iii) small, medium, 

and large businesses; (iv) think tanks 

and academia; (v) nonprofit 

organizations and consumer groups; (vi) 

security experts; (vii) rural stakeholders; 

and (viii) other stakeholders with 

relevant expertise, as determined by the 

Secretary. 

The Board members shall serve terms 

of two years (unless the Board 

terminates earlier). Vacancies are filled 

as soon as highly qualified candidates in 

a needed area of stakeholder interest are 

identified and available to serve. 

Members of the Board shall serve as 

representative members. Full-time or 

permanent part-time Federal officers or 

employees will not be appointed to the 

Board. Members must be citizens of the 

United States of America. 

Members of the Board shall not be 

compensated for their services. 

Members of the Board, while attending 

meetings of the Board away from their 

homes or regular place of business, may 

be allowed travel expenses, including 

per diem in lieu of subsistence, as 

authorized by Section 5703 of Title 5, 

United States Code, for individuals 

intermittently serving in the 

Government without pay. 

Members shall not reference or 

otherwise utilize their membership on 

the Board in connection with public 

statements made in their personal 

capacities without a disclaimer that the 

views expressed are their own and do 

not represent the views of the Board, the 

Federal Working Group, NIST, or the 

Department of Commerce. 

The Secretary will appoint the 

Board’s Chair from among the approved 

members in accordance with policies 

and procedures and, in doing so, shall 

determine the term of service for the 

Board’s Chair. 

Miscellaneous 

Meetings will be conducted at least 

twice each year. 

1. IoTAB meetings are open to the 

public. 

2. Meeting will be virtual. 

Nomination Information 

NIST uses a nomination process to 

identify candidates for the Board. 

Nominations are requested through an 

announcement in the Federal Register 

and through solicitations through the 

Federal Working Group, NIST, the 

Department of Commerce, other Federal 

agencies, and organizations representing 

relevant businesses, consumers, 

communities, and economic sectors in 

order to ensure a robust and diverse 

pool of applicants. Candidates may be 

nominated by their peers or may selfnominate. NIST requests that the 

nomination includes a resume for the 

individual that specifically identifies 

the stakeholder interest of the 

individual being nominated. 

Qualifications considered may include, 

among others: Education, professional 

experience, and scientific and technical 

expertise in selected areas. The Director 

of the Information Technology 

Laboratory (ITL) recommends 

candidates for further review to fill 

vacancies on the Board in the areas of 

needed stakeholder interest and on the 

basis of the qualifications, the sectors 

the candidates may represent and the 

existing representation on the Board, 

and other balance factors. The Director 

of ITL recommends nominees to the 

Director of NIST, who reviews the 

recommendation for submission to the 

Secretary of Commerce. Candidates for 

the Board are then reviewed by and 

appointed by the Secretary of 

Commerce. 

The Board members shall serve terms 

of two years (unless the Board 

terminates earlier). Vacancies are filled 

as soon as highly qualified candidates in 

a needed area of stakeholder interest are 

identified and available to serve. 

The Department of Commerce seeks a 

broad-based and diverse IoTAB 

membership. 

Alicia Chambers, 

NIST Executive Secretariat. 

[FR Doc. 2022–00419 Filed 1–12–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[RTID 0648–XB698] 

Taking and Importing Marine 

Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals 

Incidental to Geophysical Surveys 

Related to Oil and Gas Activities in the 

Gulf of Mexico 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of issuance of letter of 

authorization. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

Marine Mammal Protection Act 

(MMPA), as amended, its implementing 

regulations, and NMFS’ MMPA 

Regulations for Taking Marine 

Mammals Incidental to Geophysical 

Surveys Related to Oil and Gas 

Activities in the Gulf of Mexico, 

notification is hereby given that a Letter 

of Authorization (LOA) has been issued 

to Equinor Gulf of Mexico L.L.C. 

(Equinor) for the take of marine 

mammals incidental to geophysical 

survey activity in the Gulf of Mexico. 

DATES: The LOA is effective from 

January 10, 2022, through May 28, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: The LOA, LOA request, and 

supporting documentation are available 

online at: www.fisheries.noaa.gov/ 

action/incidental-take-authorization-oiland-gas-industry-geophysical-surveyactivity-gulf-mexico. In case of problems 

accessing these documents, please call 

the contact listed below (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kim 

Corcoran, Office of Protected Resources, 

NMFS, (301) 427–8401. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
2140 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2022 / Notices 

1For purposes of acoustic exposure modeling, the 

GOM was divided into seven zones. Zone 1 is not 

included in the geographic scope of the rule. 

2For purposes of acoustic exposure modeling, 

seasons include Winter (December–March) and 

Summer (April–November). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the 

MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) direct 

the Secretary of Commerce to allow, 

upon request, the incidental, but not 

intentional, taking of small numbers of 

marine mammals by U.S. citizens who 

engage in a specified activity (other than 

commercial fishing) within a specified 

geographical region if certain findings 

are made and either regulations are 

issued or, if the taking is limited to 

harassment, a notice of a proposed 

authorization is provided to the public 

for review. 

An authorization for incidental 

takings shall be granted if NMFS finds 

that the taking will have a negligible 

impact on the species or stock(s), will 

not have an unmitigable adverse impact 

on the availability of the species or 

stock(s) for subsistence uses (where 

relevant), and if the permissible 

methods of taking and requirements 

pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring 

and reporting of such takings are set 

forth. NMFS has defined ‘‘negligible 

impact’’ in 50 CFR 216.103 as an impact 

resulting from the specified activity that 

cannot be reasonably expected to, and is 

not reasonably likely to, adversely affect 

the species or stock through effects on 

annual rates of recruitment or survival. 

Except with respect to certain 

activities not pertinent here, the MMPA 

defines ‘‘harassment’’ as: Any act of 

pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) 

has the potential to injure a marine 

mammal or marine mammal stock in the 

wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has 

the potential to disturb a marine 

mammal or marine mammal stock in the 

wild by causing disruption of behavioral 

patterns, including, but not limited to, 

migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, 

feeding, or sheltering (Level B 

harassment). 

On January 19, 2021, we issued a final 

rule with regulations to govern the 

unintentional taking of marine 

mammals incidental to geophysical 

survey activities conducted by oil and 

gas industry operators, and those 

persons authorized to conduct activities 

on their behalf (collectively ‘‘industry 

operators’’), in Federal waters of the 

U.S. Gulf of Mexico (GOM) over the 

course of 5 years (86 FR 5322; January 

19, 2021). The rule was based on our 

findings that the total taking from the 

specified activities over the 5-year 

period will have a negligible impact on 

the affected species or stock(s) of marine 

mammals and will not have an 

unmitigable adverse impact on the 

availability of those species or stocks for 

subsistence uses. The rule became 

effective on April 19, 2021. 

Our regulations at 50 CFR 217.180 et 

seq. allow for the issuance of LOAs to 

industry operators for the incidental 

take of marine mammals during 

geophysical survey activities and 

prescribe the permissible methods of 

taking and other means of effecting the 

least practicable adverse impact on 

marine mammal species or stocks and 

their habitat (often referred to as 

mitigation), as well as requirements 

pertaining to the monitoring and 

reporting of such taking. Under 50 CFR 

217.186(e), issuance of an LOA shall be 

based on a determination that the level 

of taking will be consistent with the 

findings made for the total taking 

allowable under these regulations and a 

determination that the amount of take 

authorized under the LOA is of no more 

than small numbers. 

Summary of Request and Analysis 

Equinor plans to conduct a zero offset 

vertical seismic profile (VSP) survey 

and offset source borehole seismic 

survey within the Walter Ridge Area. 

See attachment 4 of Equinor’s 

application for a map. Equinor plans to 

use either a 12-element, 2,400 cubic 

inch (in3) airgun array, or a 6-element, 

1,500 in3 airgun array. Please see 

Equinor’s application for additional 

detail. 

Consistent with the preamble to the 

final rule, the survey effort proposed by 

Equinor in its LOA request was used to 

develop LOA-specific take estimates 

based on the acoustic exposure 

modeling results described in the 

preamble (86 FR 5322, 5398; January 19, 

2021). In order to generate the 

appropriate take number for 

authorization, the following information 

was considered: (1) Survey type; (2) 

location (by modeling zone 1); (3) 

number of days; and (4) season.2 The 

acoustic exposure modeling performed 

in support of the rule provides 24-hour 

exposure estimates for each species, 

specific to each modeled survey type in 

each zone and season. 

No VSP surveys were included in the 

modeled survey types, and use of 

existing proxies (i.e., 2D, 3D NAZ, 3D 

WAZ, Coil) is generally conservative for 

use in evaluation of these survey types. 

Summary descriptions of these modeled 

survey geometries are available in the 

preamble to the proposed rule (83 FR 

29212, 29220; June 22, 2018). Coil was 

selected as the best available proxy 

survey type for Equinor’s survey 

because the spatial coverage of the 

planned surveys is most similar to the 

coil survey pattern. For the planned 

Zero Offset VSP survey, one source will 

be deployed from a drilling rig at or near 

the borehole, with the seismic receivers 

(i.e., geophones) deployed in the 

borehole on wireline at specified depth 

intervals. For the Offset source, the 

source will be deployed from the vessel 

in a fixed position and will alternate 

firing with the Zero Offset source. Both 

source assemblages will be stationary. 

The coil survey pattern in the model 

was assumed to cover approximately 

144 kilometers squared (km2) per day 

(compared with approximately 795 km2, 

199 km2, and 845 km2 per day for the 

2D, 3D NAZ, and 3D WAZ survey 

patterns, respectively). Among the 

different parameters of the modeled 

survey patterns (e.g., area covered, line 

spacing, number of sources, shot 

interval, total simulated pulses), NMFS 

considers area covered per day to be 

most influential on daily modeled 

exposures exceeding Level B 

harassment criteria. Equinor’s planned 

survey is expected to cover no 

additional area as a stationary source, 

meaning that the coil proxy is most 

representative of the effort planned by 

Equinor in terms of predicted Level B 

harassment. 

In addition, all available acoustic 

exposure modeling results assume use 

of a 72-element, 8,000 in3 array. Thus, 

estimated take numbers for this LOA are 

considered conservative due to the 

differences in both the airgun array (12 

or 6 elements, 2,400 or 1,500 in3), and 

in daily survey area planned by Equinor 

(as mentioned above), as compared to 

those modeled for the rule. 

The survey is planned to occur for 1 

day in Zone 5, and 1 day in Zone 7. The 

survey may occur in either season. 

Therefore, the take estimates for each 

species are based on the season that has 

the greater value for the species (i.e., 

winter or summer). 

Additionally, for some species, take 

estimates based solely on the modeling 

yielded results that are not realistically 

likely to occur when considered in light 

of other relevant information available 

during the rulemaking process regarding 

marine mammal occurrence in the 

GOM. Thus, although the modeling 

conducted for the rule is a natural 

starting point for estimating take, our 

rule acknowledged that other 

information could be considered (see, 

e.g., 86 FR 5322, 5442 (January 19, 

2021), discussing the need to provide 

flexibility and make efficient use of 

previous public and agency review of 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2022 / Notices 2141 

3However, note that these species have been 

observed over a greater range of water depths in the 

GOM than have killer whales. 

other information and identifying that 

additional public review is not 

necessary unless the model or inputs 

used differ substantively from those that 

were previously reviewed by NMFS and 

the public). For this survey, NMFS has 

other relevant information reviewed 

during the rulemaking that indicates use 

of the acoustic exposure modeling to 

generate a take estimate for certain 

marine mammal species produces 

results inconsistent with what is known 

regarding their occurrence in the GOM. 

Accordingly, we have adjusted the 

calculated take estimates for that species 

as described below. 

Killer whales are the most rarely 

encountered species in the GOM, 

typically in deep waters of the central 

GOM (Roberts et al., 2015; Maze-Foley 

and Mullin, 2006). The approach used 

in the acoustic exposure modeling, in 

which seven modeling zones were 

defined over the U.S. GOM, necessarily 

averages fine-scale information about 

marine mammal distribution over the 

large area of each modeling zone. NMFS 

has determined that the approach can 

result in unrealistic projections 

regarding the likelihood of encountering 

killer whales. 

As discussed in the final rule, the 

density models produced by Roberts et 

al. (2016) provide the best available 

scientific information regarding 

predicted density patterns of cetaceans 

in the U.S. GOM. The predictions 

represent the output of models derived 

from multi-year observations and 

associated environmental parameters 

that incorporate corrections for 

detection bias. However, in the case of 

killer whales, the model is informed by 

few data, as indicated by the coefficient 

of variation associated with the 

abundance predicted by the model 

(0.41, the second-highest of any GOM 

species model; Roberts et al., 2016). The 

model’s authors noted the expected 

non-uniform distribution of this rarelyencountered species (as discussed 

above) and expressed that, due to the 

limited data available to inform the 

model, it ‘‘should be viewed cautiously’’ 

(Roberts et al., 2015). 

NOAA surveys in the GOM from 

1992–2009 reported only 16 sightings of 

killer whales, with an additional three 

encounters during more recent survey 

effort from 2017–18 (Waring et al., 2013; 

www.boem.gov/gommapps). Two other 

species were also observed on less than 

20 occasions during the 1992–2009 

NOAA surveys (Fraser’s dolphin and 

false killer whale 3). However, 

observational data collected by 

protected species observers (PSOs) on 

industry geophysical survey vessels 

from 2002–2015 distinguish the killer 

whale in terms of rarity. During this 

period, killer whales were encountered 

on only 10 occasions, whereas the next 

most rarely encountered species 

(Fraser’s dolphin) was recorded on 69 

occasions (Barkaszi and Kelly, 2019). 

The false killer whale and pygmy killer 

whale were the next most rarely 

encountered species, with 110 records 

each. The killer whale was the species 

with the lowest detection frequency 

during each period over which PSO data 

were synthesized (2002–2008 and 2009– 

2015). This information qualitatively 

informed our rulemaking process, as 

discussed at 86 FR 5322, 5334 (January 

19, 2021), and similarly informs our 

analysis here. 

The rarity of encounter during seismic 

surveys is not likely to be the product 

of high bias on the probability of 

detection. Unlike certain cryptic species 

with high detection bias, such as Kogia 

spp. or beaked whales, or deep-diving 

species with high availability bias, such 

as beaked whales or sperm whales, 

killer whales are typically available for 

detection when present and are easily 

observed. Roberts et al. (2015) stated 

that availability is not a major factor 

affecting detectability of killer whales 

from shipboard surveys, as they are not 

a particularly long-diving species. Baird 

et al. (2005) reported that mean dive 

durations for 41 fish-eating killer whales 

for dives greater than or equal to 1 

minute in duration was 2.3–2.4 minutes, 

and Hooker et al. (2012) reported that 

killer whales spent 78 percent of their 

time at depths between 0–10 m. 

Similarly, Kvadsheim et al. (2012) 

reported data from a study of four killer 

whales, noting that the whales 

performed 20 times as many dives to 1– 

30 m depth than to deeper waters, with 

an average depth during those most 

common dives of approximately 3 m. 

In summary, killer whales are the 

most rarely encountered species in the 

GOM and typically occur only in 

particularly deep water. While this 

information is reflected through the 

density model informing the acoustic 

exposure modeling results, there is 

relatively high uncertainty associated 

with the model for this species, and the 

acoustic exposure modeling applies 

mean distribution data over areas where 

the species is in fact less likely to occur. 

NMFS’ determination in reflection of 

the data discussed above, which 

informed the final rule, is that use of the 

generic acoustic exposure modeling 

results for killer whales would result in 

high estimated take numbers that are 

inconsistent with the assumptions made 

in the rule regarding expected killer 

whale take (86 FR 5322, 5403; January 

19, 2021). 

In past authorizations, NMFS has 

often addressed situations involving the 

low likelihood of encountering a rare 

species such as killer whales in the 

GOM through authorization of take of a 

single group of average size (i.e., 

representing a single potential 

encounter). See 83 FR 63268, December 

7, 2018. See also 86 FR 29090, May 28, 

2021; 85 FR 55645, September 9, 2020. 

For Equinor’s survey, use of the 

exposure modeling produces an 

estimate of 1 killer whale exposure. 

Given the foregoing discussion, it is 

unlikely that even one killer whale 

would be encountered during this 2-day 

survey, and accordingly, no take of 

killer whales is authorized through the 

Equinor LOA. 

Based on the results of our analysis, 

NMFS has determined that the level of 

taking authorized through the LOA is 

consistent with the findings made for 

the total taking allowable under the 

regulations. See Table 1 in this notice 

and Table 9 of the rule (86 FR 5322; 

January 19, 2021). 

Small Numbers Determination 

Under the GOM rule, NMFS may not 

authorize incidental take of marine 

mammals in an LOA if it will exceed 

‘‘small numbers.’’ In short, when an 

acceptable estimate of the individual 

marine mammals taken is available, if 

the estimated number of individual 

animals taken is up to, but not greater 

than, one-third of the best available 

abundance estimate, NMFS will 

determine that the numbers of marine 

mammals taken of a species or stock are 

small. For more information please see 

NMFS’ discussion of the MMPA’s small 

numbers requirement provided in the 

final rule (86 FR 5322, 5438; January 19, 

2021). 

The take numbers for authorization, 

which are determined as described 

above, are used by NMFS in making the 

necessary small numbers 

determinations, through comparison 

with the best available abundance 

estimates (see discussion at 86 FR 5322, 

5391; January 19, 2021). For this 

comparison, NMFS’ approach is to use 

the maximum theoretical population, 

determined through review of current 

stock assessment reports (SAR; 

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/ 

marine-mammal-protection/marinemammal-stock-assessments) and modelpredicted abundance information 

(https://seamap.env.duke.edu/models/ 

Duke/GOM/). For the latter, for taxa 

where a density surface model could be 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
2142 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2022 / Notices 

produced, we use the maximum mean 

seasonal (i.e., 3-month) abundance 

prediction for purposes of comparison 

as a precautionary smoothing of monthto-month fluctuations and in 

consideration of a corresponding lack of 

data in the literature regarding seasonal 

distribution of marine mammals in the 

GOM. Information supporting the small 

numbers determinations is provided in 

Table 1. 

TABLE 1—TAKE ANALYSIS

Species Authorized 

take 1 Abundance 2 Percent 

abundance 

Rice’s whale 3 .............................................................................................................................. 0 51 n/a 

Sperm whale ................................................................................................................................ 32 2,207 1.4 

Kogia spp. .................................................................................................................................... 4 13 4,373 0.3 

Beaked whales ............................................................................................................................ 163 3,768 4.3 

Rough-toothed dolphin ................................................................................................................ 29 4,853 0.6 

Bottlenose dolphin ....................................................................................................................... 95 176,108 0.1 

Clymene dolphin .......................................................................................................................... 79 11,895 0.7 

Atlantic spotted dolphin ............................................................................................................... 38 74,785 0.1 

Pantropical spotted dolphin ......................................................................................................... 483 102,361 0.5 

Spinner dolphin ............................................................................................................................ 74 25,114 0.3 

Striped dolphin ............................................................................................................................. 34 5,229 0.6 

Fraser’s dolphin ........................................................................................................................... 10 1,665 3.9 

Risso’s dolphin ............................................................................................................................. 20 3,764 0.5 

Melon-headed whale ................................................................................................................... 52 7,003 0.7 

Pygmy killer whale ....................................................................................................................... 16 2,126 0.7 

False killer whale ......................................................................................................................... 22 3,204 0.7 

Killer whale .................................................................................................................................. 0 267 n/a 

Short-finned pilot whale ............................................................................................................... 12 1,981 0.6 

1Scalar ratios were not applied in this case due to brief survey duration. 

2Best abundance estimate. For most taxa, the best abundance estimate for purposes of comparison with take estimates is considered here to 

be the model-predicted abundance (Roberts et al., 2016). For those taxa where a density surface model predicting abundance by month was 

produced, the maximum mean seasonal abundance was used. For those taxa where abundance is not predicted by month, only mean annual 

abundance is available. For the killer whale, the larger estimated SAR abundance estimate is used. 3The final rule refers to the GOM Bryde’s whale (Balaenoptera edeni). These whales were subsequently described as a new species, Rice’s 

whale (Balaenoptera ricei) (Rosel et al., 2021). 4 Includes 1 take by Level A harassment and 12 takes by Level B harassment. 

Based on the analysis contained 

herein of Equinor’s proposed survey 

activity described in its LOA 

application and the anticipated take of 

marine mammals, NMFS finds that 

small numbers of marine mammals will 

be taken relative to the affected species 

or stock sizes and therefore is of no 

more than small numbers. 

Authorization 

NMFS has determined that the level 

of taking for this LOA request is 

consistent with the findings made for 

the total taking allowable under the 

incidental take regulations and that the 

amount of take authorized under the 

LOA is of no more than small numbers. 

Accordingly, we have issued an LOA to 

Equinor authorizing the take of marine 

mammals incidental to its geophysical 

survey activity, as described above. 

Dated: January 7, 2022. 

Catherine Marzin, 

Director, Office of Protected Resources, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2022–00460 Filed 1–12–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[RTID 0648–XB719] 

New England Fishery Management 

Council; Public Meeting 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of public meeting. 

SUMMARY: The New England Fishery 

Management Council (Council, NEFMC) 

will hold a three-day meeting to 

consider actions affecting New England 

fisheries in the exclusive economic zone 

(EEZ). Due to ongoing public safety 

considerations related to COVID–19, 

this meeting will be conducted entirely 

by webinar. 

DATES: The webinar meeting will be 

held on Tuesday, Wednesday, and 

Thursday, February 1, 2, and 3, 2022, 

beginning at 10 a.m. on Tuesday and 9 

a.m. on Wednesday and Thursday. 

ADDRESSES: All meeting participants 

and interested parties can register to 

join the webinar at https://

register.gotowebinar.com/register/ 

3241130900598780683. 

Council address: New England 

Fishery Management Council, 50 Water 

Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950; 

telephone: (978) 465–0492; 

www.nefmc.org. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, 

New England Fishery Management 

Council; telephone: (978) 465–0492, ext. 

113. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Agenda 

Tuesday, February 1, 2022 

After introductions and brief 

announcements, the Council will 

receive reports on recent activities from 

its Chair and Executive Director, the 

Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries 

Office (GARFO) Regional Administrator, 

the Northeast Fisheries Science Center 

(NEFSC) Director, the NOAA Office of 

General Counsel, the Mid-Atlantic 

Fishery Management Council liaison, 

staff from the Atlantic States Marine 

Fisheries Commission (ASMFC), and 

representatives from the U.S. Coast 

Guard, NOAA’s Office of Law 

Enforcement, and the Northeast Trawl 

Advisory Panel. Next, the Council will 

receive the Skate Committee report and 

take final action on Framework 

Adjustment 9 to the Northeast Skate 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1