Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, and Massachusetts have formally objected to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) proposed expansion of the 2008 North Atlantic Right Whale Vessel Strike Reduction Rule – commonly called the vessel speed rule – raising concerns over its impact on coastal management, local communities, and businesses.

In June, NOAA sent a letter to each Atlantic Coast state, stating that the proposed rule is consistent with the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA). The CZMA grants coastal states the authority to review federal agency actions to ensure they align with state coastal management policies. In its communication, NOAA stated that the new vessel speed restrictions would not interfere with the states' management of coastal waters and waterfronts.

However, six states have challenged NOAA’s assessment, asserting that the proposed rule does not align with their coastal management practices and raises serious concerns about economic and environmental impacts. These objections highlight the need for more substantial stakeholder engagement in the rulemaking process.

While NOAA is not required to alter the proposed rule based on state objections, the concerns raised by these six key Atlantic states places additional pressure on the agency to reconsider its approach.

The states are requesting that NOAA address their concerns and explore more effective conservation strategies before finalizing any new regulations.

Related: Charter Boat Captains, Recreational Boating Industry Experts Speak Out Against NOAA Vessel Speed Rule

The proposed rule, which remains under review with the White House, would require recreational boats more than 35 feet in length to travel at 10 knots or less much of the Atlantic coast for up to seven months of the year. NMMA continues to advocate for the withdrawal of the proposed rule. The recreational boating industry strongly encourages the adoption of advanced marine technology as an alternative approach to protect the endangered North Atlantic right whale (NARW) and reduce the risk of vessel strikes.

“The marine industry is leading the charge in finding innovative ways to best support whales, and we are excited to see reports that the (NARW) population is growing,” said Robyn Boerstling, SVP of Government Relations at NMMA. “Unfortunately, NOAA's current rule doesn't include the flexibility we need to adapt to changing migration patterns and completely ignores common-sense solutions that use off-the-shelf technology. Access to our waterways and the safety of whales are not mutually exclusive. Our industry is making tremendous strides in developing boater notifications and other whale detection solutions, but we can do more if we work together. NOAA needs to assess this progress and chart a collaborative path forward instead of imposing sweeping restrictions on coastal states that continue to raise serious concerns with NOAA's proposed rule.”

NMMA has repeatedly said that by embracing advanced technology, NOAA can achieve its conservation goals while avoiding the significant economic harm that could result from its outdated speed restrictions.

Related: Senator Joe Manchin (I-WV) Voices Strong Concerns Over NOAA’s Proposed Rule During Key CJS Committee Markup Hearing

Below are highlights from the state letters articulating their concerns about the proposed expansion of the 2008 North Atlantic Right Whale Vessel Strike Reduction rule.

Florida Department of Transportation (August 16, 2024): “We are confident there are alternative approaches that can be considered to protect the North Atlantic Right Whale without jeopardizing the safety of pilots and crews and will serve as willing partners in finding that proper solution. The Florida Department of Transportation requests NOAA drop its proposed rule and take action to work closely with affected ports, maritime industry stakeholders, and others to accurately determine the effect any proposed rule change would have on ports and port communities.”

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (August 20, 2024): “The VMRC evaluated the proposed action and has determined that insufficient data is available to quantify coastal effects on the marine fisheries enforceable policy. Therefore, the VMRC deems that this project is inconsistent with the marine fisheries enforceable policy because the justification for the proposed rule lacks scientific, economic, and sociological information for the VMRC to decide. The proposed rule will negatively impact and underestimate the effect on the commercial and for-hire recreational fishing businesses as it directly impacts the economic value of their respective sectors.”

South Carolina Department of Environmental Services (August 30, 2024): “In review of the public comments received…with the submitted consistency determination… the proposed amendment reasonably foreseeable negative effects on large commercial and recreational vessel navigability, disproportionately impact recreational fishing in the Southeast with the inclusion of vessels larger than 35 feet which supports our local coastal community economies, effect the maneuverability of large commercial and pilot vessels which has the potential to negatively impact the movement of goods while also raises safety concerns for the transfer of the harbor pilots to those large commercial vessels in the port of Charleston and Savannah which effect the greater state-wide economy.”

Georgia Department of Natural Resources (September 11, 2024): “The regional consistency determination found that the vessel speed rule would affect waters uses, primarily by impacting transit times of vessels that lead to cost burdens, including commercial ships, cruise ships, tugs and tow boats, work and industrial vessels, recreational and commercial fishing vessels, passenger vessels (tour boats, charter fishing vessels, high-speed ferries), pilot boats, and recreational boats. However, no scientific evidence has been provided that these burdens on coastal uses will achieve the stated purpose of the amendments: to reduce the likelihood or mortalities and serious injured to endangered right whales from vessel strikes. Expansion of the existing rule in terms of spatial, temporal and vessel size, as proposed in the August 1, 2022 amendments, has not been justified as a successful way to meaningfully reduce impacts to NARW.”

North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (September 18, 2024): “DCM has significant concerns that the amendments will render commercial, recreational, and sportfishing trips impractical for the vessels and times for which the proposed rule applies due to the increased time it will take to transit to their destination offshore, the expansive geographic scale of applicability, and the increased costs per trip. During these longer trips, there is an increased potential for safety and navigation issues to arise. The analysis for the proposed rule significantly underestimates the scale of potential direct and indirect impacts to the State's coastal economy. Further, these impacts would have their greatest effect at a time of year where alternative economic and employment opportunities are at their lowest, compounding the adverse effects.”

Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management (September 18, 2024): “As stated above, CZM affirms again its objection to the proposed rule because (1) NOAA has failed to supply sufficient information to support the implementation of the proposed rule and the claim that the proposed rule is consistent with the enforceable policies of the Massachusetts Coastal Management program; and (2) the proposed rule is inconsistent with specific enforceable policies of CZM, namely the enforceable Ports and Harbors Policy #4. With this letter, CZM has exercised its right to ensure that concurrence may not be interpreted by detailing an objection to the proposed rule.”