25060 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 82 / Friday, April 27, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

Dated: April 23, 2012. 

Kevin J. Wolf, 

Assistant Secretary for Export 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2012–10104 Filed 4–26–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–33–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

15 CFR Part 922 

[Docket No. 100222109–2171–02] 

RIN 0648–AY35 

Flower Garden Banks National Marine 

Sanctuary Regulations 

AGENCIES: Office of National Marine 

Sanctuaries (ONMS), National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration 

(NOAA), Department of Commerce 

(DOC). 

ACTION: Final rule; Public availability of 

final management plan and 

environmental assessment. 

SUMMARY: The National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is 

amending the regulations for Flower 

Garden Banks National Marine 

Sanctuary to improve vessel and user 

safety, protect sanctuary resources from 

user impacts, clarify discharge language, 

and make other technical changes and 

corrections. 

DATES: Effective Date: May 29, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Copies of the final 

management plan (FMP) and 

environmental assessment (EA) 

described in this rule and the Finding 

of No Significant Impact (FONSI) are 

available upon request to Flower Garden 

Banks National Marine Sanctuary, 4700 

Avenue U, Building 216, Galveston, TX 

77551. The FMP and EA can also be 

viewed on the Web and downloaded at 

http://flowergarden.noaa.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

George Schmahl, Superintendent, 

Flower Garden Banks National Marine 

Sanctuary, 4700 Avenue U, Building 

216, Galveston, TX 77551. Email: 

fgbmanagementplan@noaa.gov. Phone: 

(409) 621–5151. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

The National Marine Sanctuaries Act 

(NMSA) (16 U.S.C. 1431 et seq.) 

authorizes the Secretary of Commerce 

(Secretary) to designate and protect as a 

national marine sanctuary areas of the 

marine environment that are of special 

national significance due to their 

conservation, recreational, ecological, 

historical, scientific, cultural, 

archeological, educational, or esthetic 

qualities. Day-to-day management of 

national marine sanctuaries has been 

delegated by the Secretary to NOAA’s 

Office of National Marine Sanctuaries 

(ONMS). The primary objective of the 

NMSA is to protect sanctuary resources, 

such as coral reefs, and cultural 

resources, such as historical shipwrecks, 

historic structures, and archaeological 

sites. 

NOAA designated Flower Garden 

Banks National Marine Sanctuary 

(FGBNMS or sanctuary) on December 5, 

1991 (56 FR 63634). Congress 

subsequently passed a law recognizing 

the designation in January 1992 (Pub. L. 

102–251, Title I, Sec. 101). At the time, 

the Sanctuary consisted of two areas 

known as East and West Flower Garden 

Banks (56 FR 63634). Congress later 

added Stetson Bank in 1996 (Pub. L. 

104–283). 

These three areas are located in the 

northwestern Gulf of Mexico and are 

described as underwater hills formed by 

rising domes of ancient salt. The 

sanctuary ranges in depth from 55 feet 

to nearly 500 feet, providing conditions 

that support several distinct habitats, 

including the northern-most coral reefs 

in the continental United States. These 

and similar formations throughout the 

northern Gulf of Mexico provide the 

foundation for essential habitat for a 

variety of species. The combination of 

location and geology makes the 

sanctuary an extremely productive and 

diverse ecosystem, but it also presents a 

unique set of challenges for managing 

and protecting its natural wonders. 

The FGBNMS regulations 

implementing the sanctuary were first 

published on December 5, 1991 (56 FR 

63634). Those regulations became 

effective on January 18, 1994 (58 FR 

65664). Among other things, the 

regulations set forth the sanctuary 

boundaries, prohibit a relatively narrow 

range of activities, and establish permit 

and certification procedures. The 

regulations were revised in December 

2000 to add Stetson Bank to the 

boundary pursuant to Public Law 104– 

283 (65 FR 81176). NOAA amended the 

FGBNMS regulations again in 2001 (66 

FR 58370) to conform to the regulations 

adopted by the International Maritime 

Organization and prohibit all anchoring 

in the sanctuary and restrict mooring to 

vessels 100 feet (30.48 meters) or 

shorter. 

The ONMS is required by NMSA 

Section 304(e) to periodically review 

sanctuary management plans to ensure 

that sanctuary management continues to 

best conserve, protect, and enhance the 

sanctuaries’ nationally significant living 

and cultural resources. Management 

plans generally outline regulatory goals, 

describe boundaries, identify staffing 

and budget needs, and set priorities and 

performance measures for resource 

protection, research, and education 

programs. The plans also guide the 

development of future management 

activities. 

The FGBNMS management plan 

review process began in the fall of 2006 

with the release of the Flower Garden 

Banks National Marine Sanctuary State 

of the Sanctuary Report. At the outset, 

NOAA held a series of public meetings 

to obtain information about the public’s 

interests and priorities for FGBNMS 

management (71 FR 52757; September 

7, 2006). NOAA then worked with the 

FGBNMS Advisory Council to prioritize 

issues and develop appropriate 

management strategies and activities for 

the preparation of a draft revised 

management plan. Based on this input, 

NOAA prepared a revised management 

plan consisting of six action plans: 

Sanctuary expansion, education and 

outreach, research and monitoring, 

resource protection, visitor use, and 

operations and administration. Because 

the resource protection and visitor use 

action plans include several strategies 

that require changes to the FGBNMS 

regulations, NOAA sought to amend the 

regulations for the sanctuary. Pursuant 

to the National Environmental Policy 

Act, 42 U.S.C. 4331–4345 (NEPA), 

NOAA also prepared a programmatic 

environmental assessment to analyze 

the environmental impacts associated 

with the proposed management plan 

revision and proposed rule. On October 

22, 2010, the proposed rule, draft 

management plan, and programmatic 

environmental assessment were released 

for 90-day public review and comment 

(75 FR 65256). 

NOAA is now amending the FGBNMS 

regulations to reflect these new 

strategies. The changes address: 

Potential conflicts between vessels and 

divers; protection of rays and whale 

sharks; and discharges and deposits. 

The changes also eliminate outdated 

references to paragraphs that no longer 

exist, update cross references to other 

paragraphs, and establish definitions for 

various new terms adopted in this 

rulemaking. 

II. Summary of the Revisions 

This rulemaking: 

1. Requires any vessel moored in the 

sanctuary to exhibit the blue and white 

International Code flag ‘‘A’’ (‘‘alpha’’ 

dive flag) or red and white ‘‘sports 

diver’’ flag whenever a SCUBA diver 

from that vessel is in the water and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 82 / Friday, April 27, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 25061 

remove the ‘‘alpha’’ dive flag or ‘‘sports 

diver’’ flag after all divers exit the water 

and return on board the vessel, 

consistent with U.S. Coast Guard 

guidelines relating to sports diving as 

contained within ‘‘Special Notice to 

Mariners’’ (00–208) for the Gulf of 

Mexico; 

2. Clarifies and updates the 

prohibition on discharges or deposits of 

any material or other matter; 

3. Prohibits killing, injuring, 

attracting, touching, or disturbing a ray 

or whale shark; and 

4. Makes technical corrections. 

A. Dive Flag Requirements 

NOAA is requiring any vessel engaged 

in diving activity within the FGBNMS 

to clearly exhibit the blue and white 

International Code flag ‘‘A’’ (‘‘alpha’’ 

dive flag) or the red and white ‘‘sports 

diver’’ flag whenever a SCUBA diver 

from that vessel is in the water and 

remove the ‘‘alpha’’ dive flag or ‘‘sports 

diver’’ flag after all SCUBA divers exit 

the water and return on board the 

vessel. This is consistent with U.S. 

Coast Guard guidelines relating to sports 

diving as contained within ‘‘Special 

Notice to Mariners’’ (00–208) for the 

Gulf of Mexico. Specifically, the U.S. 

Coast Guard (USCG) requires any vessel 

in federal waters engaged in diving 

operations to use an ‘‘alpha’’ dive flag, 

when that vessel is of a size that makes 

it impracticable to exhibit all lights and 

shapes prescribed in USCG regulations 

(33 CFR 83.27). However, the U.S. Coast 

Guard makes the distinction between 

diving operations where divers are 

attached to the vessel (i.e. surface 

supplied diving) vs. ‘‘free swimming’’ 

divers (i.e. SCUBA). 

In a ‘‘Special Notice to Mariners’’ (00– 

2008) for the Gulf of Mexico (‘‘Special 

Notice to Mariners’’), issued in 2009 

(available online at: http:// 

www.uscg.mil/d8/waterways/ 

marinfo.asp), the U.S. Coast Guard 

encourages the use of the red and white 

‘‘sports diver’’ flag for ‘‘free swimming’’ 

divers. The Special Notice to Mariners 

states, ‘‘The Alpha flag is to be flown on 

small vessels engaged in diving 

operations whenever these vessels are 

restricted in their ability to maneuver if 

divers are attached to the vessel. But in 

sports diving, where divers are usually 

free swimming, the Alpha flag does not 

have to be shown and the Coast Guard 

encourages the continued use of the 

traditional sports diver flag. The 

distinction the Coast Guard wants to 

make clear is: The Alpha flag is a 

navigational signal intended to protect 

the vessel from collision. The sports 

diver flag is an unofficial signal that, 

through custom, has come to be used to 

protect the diver in the water. It is the 

responsibility of the operator of a diving 

vessel to determine if his craft’s 

movements are restricted.’’ 

NOAA acknowledges that Federal law 

and policy strongly favor uniform rules 

wherever it is deemed practical and 

appropriate. Because the entire 

sanctuary is within federal waters, 

NOAA proposes to make the regulations 

consistent with USCG dive flag 

requirements. 

B. General Discharge/Deposit 

Prohibition 

NOAA is updating and amending the 

prohibition on discharges or deposits 

(hereafter referred collectively as 

‘‘discharges’’) in the FGBNMS 

regulations by: (1) Clarifying that the 

prohibition applies to discharges into 

the sanctuary as well as from within the 

sanctuary boundaries; (2) modifying the 

exception for the discharge of fish parts; 

(3) revising the exception for effluent 

from marine sanitation devices (MSDs); 

(4) requiring that MSDs be locked; (5) 

eliminating the word ‘‘biodegradable’’ 

and replacing that term with a more 

clear standard; and (6) clarifying the 

scope of the exception for discharges 

associated with ‘‘routine vessel 

operation.’’ 

1. Clarification of a ‘‘direct 

discharge.’’ Since the sanctuary was 

designated in 1992, NOAA has 

prohibited discharges or deposits of 

material or other matter. In doing so, 

NOAA’s regulations have differentiated 

between discharges that originate from 

within the boundaries of the sanctuary 

(hereafter referred to as ‘‘direct 

discharges’’) and those that originate 

from beyond the sanctuary boundaries, 

enter the sanctuary, and injure 

sanctuary resources. The primary 

difference between these two classes is 

that proof of injury is required with 

respect to the latter class for there to be 

a violation whereas no such proof is 

required for a violation arising from a 

direct discharge. 

To clarify the intended application of 

the direct discharge prohibition and to 

ensure consistency among the 

regulations for other sanctuaries, this 

rule clarifies that the prohibition on 

discharging or depositing any material 

or other matter applies to discharges or 

deposits from within ‘‘or into’’ the 

sanctuary. 

By adding the words ‘‘or into’’, NOAA 

is clarifying that the prohibition does 

not only apply to discharges originating 

in the waters of the sanctuary, the 

prohibition also applies, for example, to 

immediate discharges and deposits into 

the sanctuary from aircraft, when waste 

is thrown into the sanctuary from a 

vessel, or from other similar activities. 

This regulatory change will not have 

an effect on the existing oil and gas 

activities in the vicinity of the 

sanctuary. For example, the two existing 

platforms closest to the sanctuary are: 

(a) High Island 384, located 0.26 miles 

(1373 feet) from the boundary of West 

Flower Bank; and (b) High Island 376, 

located 0.22 miles (1162 feet) from East 

Flower Garden Bank. Because of the 

distance between those platforms and 

the sanctuary boundaries, NOAA does 

not foresee that either platform would 

be impacted by the new rule because 

NOAA does not envision conditions 

that would enable a discharge from 

these platforms to be considered a direct 

discharge under sanctuary regulations 

and consequently violate 15 CFR 

922.122(a)(3)(i). 

The purpose of the regulation is not 

to create new restrictions on otherwise 

lawful activities occurring beyond, but 

adjacent to, the sanctuary boundaries. 

Rather, NOAA’s goal is to ensure 

consistency among the regulations of 

other sanctuaries and clarify the 

discharge and deposit regulations. 

Discharges or deposits originating from 

beyond the sanctuary would still remain 

subject to the regulations at 

§ 922.122(a)(3)(ii), which requires proof 

of entry into the sanctuary and injury to 

sanctuary resources to constitute a 

violation. 

In the event NOAA decides to pursue 

sanctuary expansion (as described in the 

final management plan for the 

sanctuary, published concurrently with 

this rulemaking), NOAA will consider 

the need to revise this regulation and 

consult with stakeholders, including the 

oil and gas industry, to ensure adjacent 

activities are not unnecessarily affected. 

2. Exception for discharges of fish 

parts. The rule also clarifies that the 

exception to the prohibition on 

discharges or deposits (hereafter 

referred collectively as ‘‘discharges’’) for 

fish, fish parts, or chumming materials 

(bait) applies only to discharges made 

during the conduct of fishing with 

conventional hook and line gear within 

the sanctuary. This rule prevents the 

dumping of fish, fish parts, or 

chumming materials at all other times 

except for during fishing with 

conventional hook and line gear within 

the sanctuary. 

3. Exception for MSD effluent. This 

rule clarifies that the exception for 

discharge or deposit of vessel waste 

generated by a federally approved 

marine sanitation device was not 

intended to allow the discharge of 

untreated sewage (e.g., discharges from 

Type III MSDs) into the sanctuary. Type 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

25062 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 82 / Friday, April 27, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

I and Type II MSDs treat sewage, 

whereas Type III MSDs store sewage 

until it is removed at designated pumpout stations on shore or discharged at 

sea. Therefore, NOAA is modifying the 

FGBNMS regulations to clarify that only 

discharges of effluent from properly 

functioning Type I or II MSDs are 

allowed in the sanctuary. 

4. Locking MSDs. In addition, NOAA 

is requiring all MSDs be locked in a 

manner that prevents discharge or 

deposit of untreated sewage. The 

requirement that MSDs be locked (e.g., 

locking closed an overboard discharge 

valve) helps prevent both intentional 

and unintentional overboard discharges 

of untreated sewage within the 

sanctuary. 

5. Standard for excepted discharges or 

deposits. The revised regulations would 

only allow a vessel to discharge clean 

effluent from a Type I or Type II MSD. 

The use of the word ‘‘clean’’ would 

replace the use of the word 

‘‘biodegradable’’ in the regulations. 

Under the revised regulations, ‘‘clean’’ 

means not containing detectable levels 

of harmful matter; and ‘‘harmful matter’’ 

means any substance, or combination of 

substances, that because of quantity, 

concentration, or physical, chemical, or 

infectious characteristics may pose a 

present or potential threat to sanctuary 

resources or qualities, including but not 

limited to: Fishing nets, fishing line, 

hooks, fuel, oil, and those contaminants 

(regardless of quantity) listed at 40 CFR 

302.4 (§ 922.131) pursuant to the 

Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Act, as amended (42 U.S.C 9601(14)). 

NOAA decided to remove the term 

‘‘biodegradable’’ from the regulations 

because NOAA has determined that the 

term has no recognized legal definition, 

and products are labeled 

‘‘biodegradable’’ without reference to a 

fixed set of standards. NOAA could 

define the term; however, it would not 

be reasonable to expect a vessel operator 

to know which of the wide spectrum of 

products labeled as ‘‘biodegradable’’ 

meet NOAA’s definition. Defining the 

terms ‘‘clean’’ and ‘‘harmful matter’’ 

provide vessel operators with a 

definition of what is prohibited, and 

focuses on the types of contaminants 

that pose the greatest threat to water 

quality within the sanctuary. 

6. Scope of discharges or deposits 

from routine vessel operations. NOAA is 

replacing the exception for ‘‘water 

generated from routine vessel 

operations’’ with an exception for clean 

deck wash down, clean cooling water, 

and clean bilge water provided they are 

free of detectable levels of ‘‘harmful 

matter’’ as defined by the regulations. 

This facilitates compliance by clearly 

identifying what types of discharges 

from routine vessel operations are 

allowed, and focusing on those 

contaminants that pose the greatest 

threat to water quality. The requirement 

also makes the regulations consistent 

with recent requirements governing 

other national marine sanctuaries. 

C. Killing, Injuring, Attracting, Touching 

or Disturbing a Ray or Whale Shark 

Approximately 20 species of sharks 

and rays have been documented at the 

Flower Garden and Stetson Banks; some 

are seasonal, and others frequent the 

sanctuary year-round. During the winter 

months, spotted eagle rays (Aetobatus 

narinari) visit all three banks. The 

reason for the seasonal visits is unclear, 

but the occurrence is quite predictable. 

Summer months usually bring whale 

sharks (Rhincodon typus). These filterfeeding creatures can reach over 30 feet 

(9 meters) in length. Manta rays (Manta 

birostris) and the very similar-looking 

mobula rays (Mobula spp.) are regular 

visitors to the sanctuary throughout the 

year. At least 58 different individual 

manta rays have been documented and 

identified by distinctive markings on 

their undersides. Recent acoustic 

tracking of the manta rays has revealed 

that the mantas are moving between the 

three banks of the sanctuary. 

Whale sharks and rays are transient 

creatures and migrate between areas for 

feeding and mating. The sanctuary is a 

place where rays and whale sharks 

should be protected from humaninduced death, injury, or other harm. 

Humans can physically harm rays and 

whale sharks by attracting, touching, 

riding, or pursuing these animals. Their 

external sensory systems are affected by 

unnatural activation, which has 

unknown consequences on their ability 

to sense their environment. These 

animals may actively avoid diver 

interaction by changing direction or 

diving, and may exhibit violent 

shuddering. When these responses 

occur, rays and whale sharks expend 

energy in ways other than feeding and 

other natural activities, which can 

adversely affect their overall health. In 

addition, people can injure the skin of 

these animals through touching, and can 

expose the animals to other potential 

injuries. Finally, attracting rays and 

whale sharks changes their behavior and 

may negatively impact their health. As 

an example of how rays have been 

affected by divers, stingrays in the 

Cayman Islands have developed 

shoaling behavior and altered feeding 

habits, as well as exhibit skin abrasions 

from handling. Scientific citations 

regarding the concerns and examples 

here can be found in the references 

section of the environmental assessment 

(see ADDRESSES for instructions on 

obtaining a copy). 

Rays and whale sharks are not listed 

under the Endangered Species Act 

(ESA). These species are also not 

designated as depleted under the 

Marine Mammal Protection Act 

(MMPA) because they are not mammals. 

Therefore, they are not protected in the 

same manner as threatened or 

endangered species protected under the 

ESA or depleted marine mammals 

protected under the MMPA. With this 

final rule, NOAA is strengthening the 

protection of rays and whale sharks 

from harm (or likelihood thereof) in the 

sanctuary by prohibiting killing, 

injuring, attracting, touching, or 

disturbing these animals. The intent is 

to prevent intentional human 

interaction with rays and whale sharks 

in such a manner that the animals 

change direction, dive away from 

human interaction, shudder, or have 

any other adverse behavioral or physical 

reaction. An exception to this new 

prohibition is made for incidental bycatch of a ray or whale shark when 

using conventional hook-and-line 

fishing gear. In order to make this new 

prohibition as clear as possible, NOAA 

is adding definitions for the terms 

‘‘attract or attracting’’ and ‘‘disturb or 

disturbing a ray or whale shark’’ in 

§ 922.121. 

D. Technical Corrections 

NOAA is making a technical 

correction to eliminate the references in 

the regulations to § 922.122(a)(4), 

because that clause no longer exists. 

This subparagraph references a specific 

prohibition on vessel anchoring 

activities that was eliminated from the 

FGBNMS regulations in 2001 (66 FR 

58370). 

NOAA also is updating cross 

references in § 922.122(c) through (g) 

and updating cross references in 

§ 922.123(a) and (c) that may change as 

a result of the re-designation of 

paragraphs associated with this rule. 

Last, NOAA is amending the 

regulations to update the sanctuary 

office address in § 922.123(b). The 

sanctuary office moved from Bryan, TX 

to Galveston, TX in 2006, and the 

regulations were not amended 

immediately following the move. 

III. Differences Between the Proposed 

Rule and the Final Rule 

The Administrative Procedure Act 

(APA) notice-and-comment process (5 

U.S.C. 553) contemplates that changes 

may be made to the proposed rule 

without triggering an additional round 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 82 / Friday, April 27, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 25063 

of public notice and comment so long as 

the changes are ‘‘in character with the 

original scheme’’ and are of a type that 

could have been reasonably anticipated 

by the public (i.e., a logical outgrowth 

of the proposal or comments received) 

(Foss v. National Marine Fisheries 

Service, 161 F.3d 584, 591 (9th Cir. 

1998); Chemical Mfrs Ass’n v. United 

States Environmental Protection 

Agency, 870 F.2d 177 (5th Cir. 1989). In 

addition, the APA provides exceptions 

to notice and comment rulemaking for 

‘‘(A) interpretive rules, general 

statements of policy, or rules of agency 

organization, procedure, or practice; or 

(B) when the agency for good cause 

finds * * * that notice and public 

procedure thereon are impracticable, 

unnecessary, or contrary to the public 

interest’’ (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). The 

proposed rule text published in October 

2010 (75 FR 65256) and this final rule, 

including the bases for changes, are 

summarized as follows: 

A. NOAA is amending the ‘‘alpha’’ 

dive flag requirement (proposed as 

§ 922.122(a)(2)(iii)). The proposed rule 

published in October 2010 only 

required the use of the ‘‘alpha’’ flag (75 

FR 65256). In this final rule, NOAA is 

requiring any vessel engaged in diving 

activity within the FGBNMS to clearly 

exhibit the blue and white International 

Code flag ‘‘A’’ (‘‘alpha’’ dive flag) or the 

red and white ‘‘sports diver’’ flag 

whenever a SCUBA diver from that 

vessel is in the water and remove the 

‘‘alpha’’ dive flag or ‘‘sports diver’’ flag 

once all SCUBA divers exit the water 

and return on board the vessel. This is 

consistent with U.S. Coast Guard 

guidelines relating to sports diving as 

contained within ‘‘Special Notice to 

Mariners’’ (00–208) for the Gulf of 

Mexico. NOAA is making this change in 

the final rule to ensure consistency with 

the U.S. Coast Guard regulations and the 

Special Notice to Mariners (available 

online at: http://www.uscg.mil/d8/ 

waterways/marinfo.asp). NOAA views 

the change in the final rule as a logical 

outgrowth of the originally proposed 

rule. 

B. NOAA is amending the definition 

for ‘‘disturb or disturbing a ray or whale 

shark’’. NOAA received many public 

comments requesting a change to the 

definition proposed in the Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking published in 75 

FR 65256. The public was mainly 

concerned that under the definition (as 

originally proposed) a violation could 

arise if the animal initiated interaction 

or if the animal exhibited some natural 

behavioral traits (like shuddering) 

without provocation. That was not 

NOAA’s intent. Therefore, in response 

to these comments, the final rule 

clarifies that behavioral responses by 

the animal produced by passive 

interaction with a human does not 

constitute a violation of the regulations. 

NOAA is only concerned with active 

human conduct that disturbs a ray or 

whale shark, through (but not limited 

to) touching, handling, riding, pursuing, 

chasing, hunting, or restraining the 

animal. 

C. NOAA is creating a new exception 

for the prohibition on killing, injuring, 

attracting, touching or disturbing a ray 

or whale shark. Public comments 

received by NOAA indicate that some 

small rays such as sting rays can 

sometimes be caught as by-catch by 

lawful hook-and-line fishing. NOAA’s 

intention with this new regulation was 

not to impose restrictions on users of 

conventional hook and line gear, as the 

species of rays and whale sharks NOAA 

is concerned about protecting would not 

be likely by-catch of hook and line 

recreational fishing. By adding an 

exception for the use of conventional 

hook and line gear, NOAA clarifies that 

the prohibition on killing, injuring, 

attracting, touching or disturbing rays 

and whale sharks does not apply to 

incidental by-catch during lawful 

fishing in the sanctuary. 

D. NOAA is amending the regulations 

to update the sanctuary office address in 

§ 922.123(b). The sanctuary office 

moved from Bryan, TX to Galveston, TX 

in 2006, and the regulations were not 

amended immediately following the 

move. NOAA finds good cause to 

change the address because the public 

must be able to contact the office for 

permit applications and other reasons, 

and the modification is exempt from 

normal notice and comment procedures 

since it is a minor technical change 

affecting current agency organization or 

practice. 

E. NOAA is amending § 922.122(a)(4) 

to clarify that the only exception to the 

prohibition on drilling into, dredging or 

otherwise altering the seabed is for 

activities conducted in areas of the 

sanctuary outside the no-activity zones 

and incidental to exploration for, 

development of, or production of oil or 

gas in those areas (§ 922.122(c)). The 

original regulatory language provided a 

broad exception for anchoring; however, 

this was rendered obsolete with the 

promulgation of the anchoring 

prohibition in 2001 (66 FR 58370). 

Since the only anchoring currently 

allowed in FGBNMS pertains to 

§ 922.122(c), NOAA finds good cause to 

clarify the regulations. NOAA views this 

as a technical change and logical 

outgrowth of the 2001 rulemaking. This 

change does not alter the intent of the 

regulations, nor is it expected to 

substantially impact any users of the 

sanctuary since the existing anchoring 

prohibition in FGBNMS has been in 

effect for more than a decade; therefore, 

no changes were made to the 

environmental assessment associated 

with this rulemaking and additional 

notice and comment is not required 

under the APA. 

For ease of reference and 

understanding, NOAA is reprinting 

section 922.122 as it would read in its 

entirety as amended, and section 

922.123(a) through (c), rather than 

printing individual, editorial 

instructions to the Federal Register. 

Except as noted above, there are no 

additional changes to the sections from 

the proposed rule. 

IV. Responses to Public Comments 

The National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 

conducted two public hearings to gather 

input on the FGBNMS draft 

management plan (DMP)/programmatic 

environmental assessment (PEA) and 

proposed rule during the public 

comment period from October 22, 2010 

to January 20, 2011. All written and 

verbal comments received during the 

public comment period were compiled 

and grouped into eight categories. 

Similar comments from multiple 

submissions have been treated as one 

comment for purposes of response. 

NOAA considered all comments 

(including editorial comments on the 

DMP/PEA) and, where appropriate, 

made changes that are reflected in this 

final rule, the final management plan 

(FMP), and the programmatic 

environmental assessment (EA). 

Substantive comments received are 

summarized below, followed by 

NOAA’s response. 

Sanctuary Expansion 

Comment 1. Sanctuary expansion is 

not necessary because the proposed 

reefs and banks have relatively low 

visitation by scuba divers and fishers 

compared to other sanctuaries. Are 

there other ways to protect additional 

reefs and banks in the Gulf of Mexico 

without sanctuary expansion? 

The National Marine Sanctuaries Act 

(NMSA) authorizes the Secretary of 

Commerce to designate and protect 

areas of the marine environment with 

special national significance due to their 

conservation, recreational, ecological, 

historical, scientific, cultural, 

archeological, educational, or esthetic 

qualities as national marine sanctuaries. 

It is this concept of special places that 

persuades us to protect and enhance 

certain marine areas, even before 

impacts occur or without immediate 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

25064 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 82 / Friday, April 27, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

pressures on the resource. Sanctuary 

expansion would allow other reefs and 

banks in the northwestern Gulf of 

Mexico to benefit from comprehensive 

management, something currently not 

available by other means. 

The sanctuary expansion action plan 

does not make any determination 

regarding the various options for 

expanding the sanctuary or regulations 

within expansion areas. The action plan 

only lays out the framework for 

conducting a thorough environmental 

review required by NEPA and NMSA. 

Alteration to the boundaries of 

FGBNMS (or expanding the sanctuary) 

would necessitate a change to the 

FGBNMS terms of designation, 

regulations, and coordinates. Should 

NOAA decide to pursue boundary 

expansion, NOAA would prepare a draft 

environmental impact statement (DEIS) 

and conduct extensive public review. 

Other means of protecting additional 

reefs and banks in the Gulf of Mexico 

include, for example, No Activity Zones 

managed by the Bureau of Ocean Energy 

Management (BOEM) or Habitat Areas 

of Particular Concern managed by 

NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries 

Service. These kinds of conservation 

measures have specific purposes and are 

not designed to address the need to 

protect an ecosystem from a holistic 

perspective. 

Comment 2. The public should not 

have limited access to and use of 

potential new sanctuary areas. 

Regulations in any new sanctuary areas 

should not prohibit fishing and diving. 

This final rule does not expand any 

area of the Sanctuary. NOAA has yet to 

determine potential areas to be added to 

the sanctuary or what regulations are 

needed in possible new expansion 

areas. The management plan states that 

new areas would be subject to the 

regulations of the current sanctuary, 

which generally allow fishing and 

diving; however, site specific 

regulations may be appropriate. The 

current FGBNMS management plan 

would apply or a new management plan 

would be written and applied to any 

new areas. Should NOAA decide to 

pursue boundary expansion, NOAA 

would prepare a DEIS and conduct 

extensive public review. 

Comment 3. NOAA has not conducted 

socioeconomic studies to support 

sanctuary expansion or research only 

areas. 

Activity 1.1 of the sanctuary 

expansion action plan in the final 

management plan states that NOAA will 

develop a DEIS to evaluate alternatives 

for incorporating additional reefs and 

banks in the northwestern Gulf of 

Mexico into FGBNMS. The DEIS will 

discuss the consequences of sanctuary 

expansion on the human environment 

or the socioeconomic resources of the 

region. The socioeconomic impact 

analysis will focus on the industries/ 

user groups that depend on the 

resources of the current FGBNMS and 

the banks currently being evaluated for 

inclusion in FGBNMS through 

sanctuary expansion. 

Comment 4. If sanctuary expansion 

occurs, NOAA should install mooring 

buoys at all new sites to enhance fishing 

and diving activities as anchoring would 

be prohibited. 

NOAA agrees that mooring buoys are 

a useful tool to promote sanctuary use 

that is compatible with resource 

protection. Activity 3.1 of the visitor use 

action plan in the final management 

plan proposes to create a mooring buoy 

plan that will evaluate the need for 

additional buoys, both in the existing 

sanctuary and in the event any new 

areas are considered in a sanctuary 

expansion process. The sanctuary 

expansion action plan does not make 

any determination regarding the various 

options for expanding the sanctuary or 

regulations within expansion areas. The 

action plan only lays out the framework 

for conducting a thorough 

environmental review required by 

NEPA and NMSA. Alteration to the 

boundaries of FGBNMS (or expanding 

the sanctuary) would necessitate a 

change to the FGBNMS terms of 

designation, regulations, and 

coordinates. Should NOAA decide to 

pursue boundary expansion, NOAA will 

prepare a draft environmental impact 

statement (DEIS) and conduct extensive 

public review. NOAA has yet to 

determine the areas to be potentially 

added to the sanctuary or what 

regulations are needed in possible new 

expansion areas. The management plan 

states that as an extension of the current 

sanctuary, it is assumed that if any areas 

are considered for future addition those 

new areas will be subject to the 

regulations of the current sanctuary; 

however, site specific regulations may 

be appropriate. The current FGBNMS 

management plan would apply or a new 

management plan would be written and 

applied to any new areas. Should 

NOAA decide to pursue boundary 

expansion, NOAA would prepare a 

DEIS and conduct extensive public 

review. 

Comment 5. Designating new reefs 

and banks in the northwestern Gulf of 

Mexico as sanctuaries will increase 

visibility and activity by fishers and 

divers leading to increased impacts to 

the resources. Similarly, too much 

information about the habitats of the 

sanctuary and surrounding areas, and 

fishing sites, is provided on the 

FGBNMS Web site. 

The criteria for evaluation of potential 

new sites were based on the primary 

NMSA mandate of resource protection. 

The benefits of a comprehensive 

management approach offered by 

sanctuary designation could outweigh 

any risk that might exist from increased 

visibility and activity by fishers and 

divers. Should NOAA decide to pursue 

boundary expansion, NOAA will 

prepare a DEIS that would include an 

analysis of the potential impacts of 

increased visibility and visitation. 

Research results and information 

provided on both the FGBNMS Web site 

and the National Coastal Data 

Development Center (NCDDC) Web site 

are in the public domain and intended 

for use by sanctuary users and 

constituents. One of the purposes and 

policies of the NMSA is to enhance 

public awareness, understanding, 

appreciation, and wise and sustainable 

use of the marine environment, and the 

natural, historical, cultural, and 

archeological resources of the National 

Marine Sanctuary System. NOAA’s goal 

is to make people aware of their impacts 

and give them the knowledge and skills 

to become good stewards of the 

sanctuary and the regional marine 

environment. 

Fishing 

Comment 6. NOAA’s gear prohibition 

for fish harvesting in FGBNMS should 

be reconsidered. The impact of 

spearfishing on the sanctuary 

environment is minimal. What research 

has been done to support the current 

prohibition and why is spearfishing not 

allowed in the sanctuary? 

NOAA is not proposing to change 

regulations associated with spearfishing, 

or any other type of fishing, at this time. 

If the boundary of FGBNMS is 

expanded, however, any regulations 

related to fishing, including 

spearfishing, would be evaluated 

through a public process for each new 

area under consideration. 

Spearfishing has been prohibited in 

FGBNMS since its designation in 1992. 

The prohibition was due primarily to 

concerns raised by studies that 

demonstrated that spearfishing could be 

detrimental to fisheries resources 

through the selective removal of large 

predator species. Research conducted 

since sanctuary designation supports 

this concern and reinforces the rationale 

for a spearfishing prohibition. A 

summary of this research is available on 

the sanctuary Web site (http:// 

flowergarden.noaa.gov). 

Comment 7. NOAA should allow 

boaters to carry stowed spearguns on 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 82 / Friday, April 27, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 25065 

board vessels in FGBNMS to facilitate 

spearfishing in areas outside of the 

sanctuary before or after a sanctuary 

visit. 

Sanctuary regulations prohibit the 

possession of any type of fishing 

equipment (including spearguns), 

except for conventional hook and line 

gear, unless passing through without 

interruption. The reason for this 

restriction is related to the ability to 

reasonably enforce the regulation. It is 

difficult to enforce a spearfishing 

prohibition if the possession of 

spearfishing equipment is allowed in 

the sanctuary. If only the use of such 

equipment is prohibited, it would 

require that direct observation of 

spearfishing activity be made by a law 

enforcement entity. In a remote location 

such as FGBNMS, where the activity 

would occur 70–100 feet below the 

surface, enforcement by observation 

only would be nearly impossible. The 

existing regulation has been in effect 

since designation 20 years ago, and it 

has not resulted in undue restriction on 

visitor use and activity. Therefore, the 

regulation will remain as written. If 

expansion is considered in future 

analysis, when regulations are 

considered for any potential new areas 

to be added to the sanctuary, the use 

and possession of spearguns would be 

evaluated on an individual area basis. 

Comment 8. NOAA should limit the 

use of inappropriate fishing gear to 

protect sanctuary resources or prohibit 

fishing altogether in the existing 

sanctuary. 

National marine sanctuaries are 

managed by NOAA to protect and 

conserve their resources, and to allow 

uses that are compatible with resource 

protection. Current FGBNMS 

regulations limit fishing within the 

sanctuary to conventional hook and line 

gear. Fishing by use of any other gear, 

including spear guns, is prohibited. 

During the scoping process for the 

revised management plan and in 

response to the DMP, many commenters 

asked NOAA to consider closing all or 

portions of the FGBNMS to fishing. 

Although fishing pressure is perceived 

to be moderate, the impact on local fish 

populations is not well known at this 

time. The spatial resolution of fishing 

data is currently not precise enough to 

quantitatively assess fishing pressure 

within the sanctuary. The research and 

monitoring action plan and the visitor 

use action plan in the final management 

plan lay out strategies to obtain 

information that would allow NOAA to 

evaluate compatible uses of the 

sanctuary. In addition, Activity 2.3 of 

the resource protection action plan 

addresses the need for additional 

measures to protect resources from 

impacts associated with inappropriate 

fishing gear. 

Comment 9. NOAA has not presented 

evidence that further fishing restrictions 

are needed or that fish populations are 

declining. Why are fishing and diving 

impact studies necessary? 

At this time, NOAA is not proposing 

any regulations that would further 

restrict fishing activity. 

It is well documented that most 

fishery stocks for which there are stock 

assessments in the northern Gulf of 

Mexico have undergone or are still 

undergoing overfishing. Many species, 

such as snapper, some species of 

grouper, amberjack and others have 

declined significantly in the Gulf of 

Mexico since records have been kept. 

Although there are recent data to 

suggest that some species (such as red 

snapper) have shown limited recovery 

in population size, they are still much 

lower than historical levels. It is logical 

to assume that fish populations within 

FGBNMS have also been similarly 

affected by the general decline of fish 

stocks throughout the Gulf of Mexico. 

However, the data that do exist, such as 

fish landing survey information, have 

not been collected at a scale to 

adequately evaluate impacts on an area 

the size of the sanctuary. Therefore, 

NOAA believes that the fishing and 

diving impact studies would provide 

valuable information for the 

management of the sanctuary. 

Diving 

Comment 10. Through multiple DMP 

proposals, NOAA is pursuing policies 

that seem to discourage recreational 

diving. The recreational dive 

community should be embraced and 

encouraged to assist with resource 

protection. 

ONMS embraces and welcomes 

diving at FGBNMS. The management 

strategies are not intended to discourage 

recreational diving within the 

sanctuary. Rather, NOAA is protecting 

the resource while enhancing visitor 

safety. Traditionally, recreational divers 

have been among the strongest 

supporters of the sanctuary—from 

leading the effort for sanctuary 

designation, to serving as naturalists 

onboard charter boats, to reporting 

observations when visiting the 

sanctuary. NOAA intends that the 

changes in sanctuary management will 

not diminish the recreational diver’s 

experience. By working together with 

sanctuary users, especially recreational 

divers, NOAA can more effectively meet 

its goals and protect sanctuary 

resources. 

Comment 11. NOAA should adopt the 

‘‘Blue Star’’ program for FGBNMS. 

The Blue Star program was 

established by Florida Keys National 

Marine Sanctuary management to 

recognize charter boat operators who 

promote responsible, sustainable, and 

educational diving and snorkeling 

practices. An activity to examine the 

implementation of the Blue Star 

program for FGBNMS was added to the 

Education and Outreach Action Plan 

(activity 3.3). 

Ray/Whale Shark Regulations 

Comment 12. The proposed regulation 

prohibiting the disturbance of whale 

sharks and all species of rays is too 

broad. The prohibition should only 

apply to manta rays and whale sharks. 

There are a variety of ray species that 

utilize the habitats within FGBNMS. In 

addition to the giant manta, there are 

other pelagic (free swimming) ray 

species commonly observed, including 

at least two species of mobula (devil) 

rays, the spotted eagle ray, and the 

cownose ray. Several species of bottomdwelling rays also live within the 

sanctuary, including the southern 

stingray and roughtail stingray. NOAA 

believes that all species of rays should 

be included in the regulation that 

prohibits disturbance. It has been 

demonstrated in other areas of the world 

that stingrays and other rays can be 

subject to negative disturbance from 

visitor activities. See the programmatic 

environmental assessment for additional 

detail and references regarding impacts 

on ray species in the FGBNMS. 

Comment 13. The proposed regulation 

to protect rays and whale sharks relies 

on a definition of ‘‘disturb or disturbing 

a ray or whale shark’’ that includes any 

activity that ‘‘has the potential to 

disrupt.’’ NOAA should revise this 

catch-all phrase in the definition which 

would potentially place every sanctuary 

visitor in violation of the proposed rule. 

NOAA agrees. The definition has been 

revised to address this concern and 

additional information has been added 

to the preamble. 

Comment 14. Using scientific studies 

from other locations (e.g. the Cayman 

Islands) to support regulations at 

FGBNMS is inappropriate because the 

interactions between sanctuary visitors 

and wildlife are different at the 

sanctuary than elsewhere. FGBNMS 

does not have heavy visitor use like 

other areas. 

The purpose of the reference to the 

Cayman Island study on stingrays was 

to provide an example of an area that is 

experiencing visitor use that may be 

having potentially detrimental impacts 

on a species of ray. It is not anticipated 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

25066 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 82 / Friday, April 27, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

or suggested that this particular issue is 

or will ever be a problem at FGBNMS. 

It is relevant, however, because 

stingrays are included in the proposed 

regulation for FGBNMS, and it clearly 

demonstrates that intense visitor 

activity can affect the behavior and 

health of a ray species, requiring 

management action to control potential 

impacts. 

Comment 15. NOAA has not 

demonstrated that divers are causing 

physical harm to rays and whale sharks. 

The proposed regulation is excessive. 

NOAA has supplemented the 

programmatic environmental 

assessment with additional information 

and references on the impacts of divers 

on rays and whale sharks. 

Visitor Use 

Comment 16. The proposed dive flag 

regulation should include the use of the 

red and white diver down or ‘‘sports 

diver’’ flag, because it is more widely 

recognized by divers. The proposed 

regulation also appears to be 

inconsistent with the existing 

requirement for use of the alpha flag in 

the USCG navigation rules. 

NOAA agrees. The regulation has 

been revised to address this concern and 

make it consistent with USCG 

navigation rules. 

Comment 17. NOAA should 

implement a vessel registration system 

for FGBNMS. Access to the sanctuary 

could be controlled by issuing visitation 

permits. 

Although NOAA agrees that a vessel 

registration system would provide 

information on visitor use dynamics, 

establishing a visitation permitting 

system would be difficult. NOAA plans 

to evaluate the effectiveness of the 

voluntary registration system before 

considering a mandatory visitation 

permitting system. NOAA is gathering 

more information about sanctuary use 

and has asked visitors to use the 

voluntary trip report form available on 

the FGBNMS Web site. Activities 1.1 

and 1.2 of the visitor use action plan 

describe the need for and benefits of 

voluntary vessel registration and a 

visitor use monitoring program. 

Comment 18. NOAA should 

collaborate with other agencies and 

industry to increase enforcement efforts 

at FGBNMS. More enforcement is 

needed. Add surveillance equipment to 

platforms. 

NOAA agrees. Currently, enforcement 

of sanctuary regulations is done with 

support from the U.S. Coast Guard and 

NOAA’s Office of Law Enforcement. 

NOAA plans to increase collaboration 

with those entities as well as the Texas 

and Louisiana state law enforcement 

agencies. Enforcement at the sanctuary 

is logistically difficult due to the 

distance from shore. NOAA recognizes 

that partnering with industry to place 

monitoring or surveillance equipment 

on the production platform that lies 

within current sanctuary boundaries 

could greatly enhance enforcement 

capabilities. Therefore, NOAA has 

added an activity to the resource 

protection action plan in the final 

management plan to consider this more 

thoroughly. 

Discharge 

Comment 19. NOAA should prohibit 

all discharges within the sanctuary, 

including treated sewage. 

NOAA is not prepared to prohibit all 

discharges within the sanctuary at this 

time. Given the distance from shore, 

water depth, number and type of vessels 

currently operating in the area, and 

current scientific knowledge, NOAA 

feels that allowing clean discharges will 

provide adequate protection for 

sanctuary resources while still allowing 

compatible uses. 

Comment 20. The new language in the 

proposed rule that prohibits 

‘‘discharging or depositing from within 

or into the sanctuary’’ is too broad and 

open-ended and is cause for concern by 

the oil and gas industry, especially 

where entities are already permitted 

under a National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES) general 

permit for the Gulf of Mexico. 

By adding the words ‘‘or into’’, NOAA 

is clarifying that the prohibition does 

not only apply to discharges originating 

in the sanctuary, the prohibition also 

applies, for example, to immediate 

discharges and deposits into the 

sanctuary from aircraft, when waste is 

thrown into the sanctuary from a vessel, 

or from other similar activities. 

This regulatory change will not have 

an effect on the existing oil and gas 

activities in the vicinity of the 

sanctuary. For example, the two existing 

platforms closest to the sanctuary are: 

(a) High Island 384, located 0.26 miles 

(1373 feet) from the boundary of West 

Flower Bank; and (b) High Island 376, 

located 0.22 miles (1162 feet) from East 

Flower Garden Bank. Because of the 

distance between those platforms and 

the sanctuary boundaries, NOAA does 

not foresee that either platform would 

be impacted by the new rule because 

NOAA does not envision conditions 

that would enable a discharge from 

these platforms to be considered a direct 

discharge under sanctuary regulations 

and consequently violate 15 CFR 

922.122(a)(3)(i). 

The purpose of the regulation is not 

to create new restrictions on otherwise 

lawful activities occurring beyond, but 

adjacent to, the sanctuary boundaries. 

Rather, NOAA’s goal is to ensure 

consistency among the regulations of 

other sanctuaries. Discharges or deposits 

originating from beyond the sanctuary 

would still remain subject to the 

regulations at § 922.122(a)(3)(ii), which 

requires proof of entry into the 

sanctuary and injury to sanctuary 

resources to constitute a violation. 

Education and Outreach 

Comment 21. NOAA should build 

constituency and numbers of sanctuary 

advocates by increasing volunteer 

recruitment. 

NOAA agrees and recognizes the need 

for increased volunteer involvement. 

The strategy to increase public support 

and stewardship of the sanctuary in the 

final management plan (EO.3, activity 

3.2) includes an activity to enhance the 

FGBNMS volunteer program. The 

planned addition of a volunteer 

coordinator (OA.1, activity 1.1), subject 

to budget allocations, would enable 

NOAA to fully develop the FGBNMS 

volunteer program. 

Comment 22. NOAA should establish 

outreach programs in coastal area 

communities other than Galveston. It 

should establish a presence in Louisiana 

near recommended sanctuary 

expansion areas. 

Due to limited budget for outreach, 

NOAA is currently focusing the majority 

of its sanctuary outreach efforts in the 

Galveston area in order to develop a 

strong local constituency in the region 

closest to the sanctuary. Nonetheless, 

NOAA agrees that outreach efforts 

should not be limited only to the 

Galveston area, and welcomes 

opportunities to work with partners 

throughout the region. For example, 

NOAA already has sanctuary outreach 

programs in the form of exhibits in the 

Audubon Aquarium of the Americas in 

New Orleans, LA, the Texas State 

Aquarium in Corpus Christi, TX and the 

Tennessee Aquarium in Chattanooga, 

TN. NOAA has also begun to develop 

avenues for communicating with 

fishermen and divers in Louisiana. In 

the event that the sanctuary is expanded 

to include banks off of Louisiana, 

education and outreach programs to 

reach that region would be developed at 

that time. The sanctuary expansion 

action plan does not make any 

determination regarding the various 

options for expanding the sanctuary or 

regulations within expansion areas. The 

action plan only lays out the framework 

for conducting a thorough 

environmental review required by 

NEPA and NMSA. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 82 / Friday, April 27, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 25067 

Comment 23. Education and outreach 

programs should emphasize how 

human activities impact marine habitats 

and the benefits of marine reserves. 

NOAA education and outreach 

presentations, programs, and products 

routinely include information about 

human impacts on marine habitats. 

NOAA also recognizes the value and 

importance of educating people about a 

variety of marine management 

techniques, including marine reserves. 

For example, NOAA produces lesson 

plans and activities on topics such as 

watersheds and marine debris. In 

addition, information about human 

impacts is incorporated throughout the 

FGBNMS Web site. 

Other 

Comment 24. The FGBNMS 

management plan should thoroughly 

address the potential risks to FGBNMS 

associated with oil and gas industry 

operations in the Gulf of Mexico. NOAA 

should consider additional regulations 

due to the potential impact of oil spills. 

The FGBNMS is located within one of 

the most heavily developed offshore oil 

and gas exploration areas in the world. 

The potential for impact to the marine 

environment of the Flower Garden 

Banks from an oil-related incident has 

been considered since before the area 

became a national marine sanctuary. 

Beginning in the 1970s, the Minerals 

Management Service (now reorganized 

into the Bureau of Ocean Energy 

Management (BOEM) and the Bureau of 

Safety and Environmental Enforcement 

(BSEE)), identified the Flower Garden 

Banks and many other reefs and banks 

of the northwestern Gulf of Mexico as 

areas that warranted special protection. 

They developed a set of requirements, 

called stipulations, to help minimize the 

threat of impact from offshore oil and 

gas activities (Reference: Notice to 

Lessees, NTL No. 2009–G39, 

‘‘Biologically-Sensitive Underwater 

Features and Areas’’, Effective Date: 

January 27, 2010). The earliest such 

stipulations were published in the Final 

Environmental Impact Statement for the 

Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf 

(OCS) lease sale 34 in May 1974. Since 

the time that these, and other 

stipulations, have been in place, they 

have shown to be very effective in 

protecting the sanctuary from routine 

operations associated with offshore oil 

and gas exploration and development. 

Planning for an appropriate response 

to an oil spill or other hazardous 

material release in the vicinity of the 

Flower Garden Banks is of the highest 

priority for the sanctuary. The Oil 

Pollution Act of 1990 requires the U.S. 

Coast Guard to develop an Area 

Contingency Plan (ACP) for each region 

of coastal waters. NOAA continues to 

coordinate with the USCG on updating 

and refining the ACP for Texas and 

Louisiana offshore waters. In addition, 

NOAA will assist the USCG in the 

development of a specific sub-area 

contingency plan for oil spill response 

for the Flower Garden Banks National 

Marine Sanctuary area, as described in 

Activity 2.4 of the Resource Protection 

Action Plan. 

Prior to the Deepwater Horizon event 

in April 2010, which occurred slightly 

east of the northwestern Gulf of Mexico, 

there had not been a significant 

hydrocarbon spill or other incident in 

the region since the designation of 

FGBNMS. However, a similar incident 

could potentially occur in an area that 

would threaten the health of sanctuary 

resources. For that reason, NOAA is 

working closely with BOEM and EPA in 

reviewing, and revising, if necessary, 

environmental policies related to 

offshore oil and gas leasing and 

development to ensure the highest level 

of protection of sensitive biological 

communities. 

Given these existing various 

mechanisms geared toward protecting 

the FGBNMS from the disastrous effects 

of a potential oil spill, NOAA did not 

include a specific action plan on this 

topic in the revised management plan. 

Rather, staff effort will focus on 

continuing to coordinate with other 

agencies. Similarly, NOAA did not 

revise the sanctuary regulations. NOAA 

believes the current regulations in place 

addressing disturbance of the seafloor 

and discharges in the sanctuary are 

adequate at this time. 

Comment 25. Climate change is the 

biggest threat to sanctuary resources. 

NOAA recognizes that climate change 

is a potential threat to sanctuary 

resources. In 2010, NOAA finalized a 

Climate Strategy for national marine 

sanctuaries and implemented a 

‘‘Climate-Smart Sanctuaries’’ Initiative. 

Language has been added to the 

operation and administration and 

education and outreach action plans to 

incorporate various aspects of this 

initiative. In addition, NOAA will 

develop a climate change site scenario 

and climate change action plan for 

FGBNMS and plans to pursue ClimateSmart Sanctuary Certification as 

detailed in activity 2.6 of the resource 

protection action plan in the final 

management plan. 

Comment 26. Artificial reefs should 

be protected. 

There are no artificial reefs in 

FGBNMS. If presented with 

opportunities to make recommendations 

during decommissioning processes for 

platforms within sanctuary boundaries, 

NOAA would examine the options on a 

case-by-case basis. 

Comment 27. NOAA must take 

aggressive action to prevent the 

establishment of the invasive lionfish in 

FGBNMS. 

Lionfish have been observed in 

sanctuary waters since July 2011. As 

stated in Activity 5.2 of the research and 

monitoring action plan in the final 

management plan, NOAA is currently 

developing research priorities and a 

response plan to study and manage the 

impacts of invasive species, including 

lionfish, on sanctuary resources. 

At this time, NOAA’s policy is to 

remove any lionfish encountered in 

sanctuary boundaries using prescribed 

protocols. Permits for the removal of 

lionfish have been issued to some dive 

masters of recreational dive charters that 

frequent the sanctuary to assist in this 

effort. The diving public is also 

encouraged to help monitor the 

situation by reporting any lionfish 

sightings, including date, time, location, 

size of the lionfish, and any other 

information about the habitat or the 

behavior of the fish to sanctuary staff. 

Comment 28. The cost to implement 

the management plan is unreasonably 

high. NOAA should carefully consider 

availability of funds during the 

proposed sanctuary expansion and 

prioritize activities, which should 

include R/V Manta operations. 

The budget estimates given in the 

draft management plan are those 

necessary to support all of the activities 

identified within the various action 

plans. While the plan was developed 

with realistic expectations, NOAA 

recognizes that not all of the activities 

can or will be carried out due to 

budgetary restrictions or other factors. 

Therefore, NOAA agrees with the 

suggestion that activities should be 

prioritized in the plan, and this has 

been added to the document. However, 

over the years, NOAA has taken a 

number of steps to increase resources 

available for sanctuaries. These have 

included pursuing outside funding 

sources for critical operations such as 

grants, partner cost-sharing, donations, 

and special use permit fees. NOAA has 

also been successful in leveraging 

partner capabilities and in-kind support. 

For example, the U.S. Coast Guard has 

provided aerial overflights for 

surveillance and enforcement at 

FGBNMS. 

During the preliminary evaluation of 

possible sanctuary expansion 

alternatives by the Sanctuary Advisory 

Council, budgetary factors were taken 

into consideration. For example, the 

areas presented for potential expansion 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

25068 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 82 / Friday, April 27, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

by the Sanctuary Advisory Council were 

limited by the distance that could be 

serviced within the operational 

capabilities of the existing sanctuary 

vessel (approximately 200 miles from 

Galveston TX), reducing the need for 

additional vessels or infrastructure. 

Priority consideration was also given to 

the anticipated amount of funds 

available in the sanctuary budget to 

operate the R/V Manta in other areas of 

the Gulf of Mexico. 

The effective operation of the R/V 

Manta is necessary in the 

implementation of almost all aspects of 

sanctuary management. As such, the 

continued maintenance of this asset is a 

high priority for NOAA, and will be 

given due consideration in the 

allocation of available resources. 

V. Classification 

A. National Environmental Policy Act 

NOAA has prepared a final 

programmatic environmental 

assessment to analyze the potential 

environmental impacts of this 

rulemaking. The programmatic 

environmental assessment analyzes the 

administrative and programmatic 

activities associated with the No Action 

Alternative and the Preferred 

Alternative to revise the FGBNMS 

management plan and take regulatory 

actions. Administrative activities 

conducted within existing facilities, 

such as consultations, outreach, 

administrative frameworks, 

development of plans, and data analysis 

will have little to no potential to 

significantly affect the quality of the 

human environment according to NEPA 

standards. Activities to manage the 

sanctuary as outlined in the final 

management plan, considered together 

with the many natural and humaninduced stressors to sanctuary 

resources, generally result in a 

cumulative beneficial impact to these 

resources. However, as with the 

administrative activities, the positive 

impacts do not meet the NEPA 

threshold for significance. This is 

because at a programmatic level, no 

single activity, when taken in 

consideration with others, will have 

significant beneficial or negative 

impacts on any individual or combined 

resource. 

To the extent that future activities 

considered under any of the action 

plans (which range from infrastructure 

construction, management measures to 

implement sanctuary expansion, or 

establishment of an experimental 

closure to evaluate the impacts of diving 

and fishing) are conducted in the 

human environment, a NEPA review to 

analyze the impacts of alternatives 

would be conducted. 

The programmatic environmental 

assessment on the final management 

plan and revised regulations for 

FGBNMS results in a Finding of No 

Significant Impact (FONSI). 

Accordingly, no environmental impact 

statement was prepared. Copies of the 

environmental assessment and FONSI 

are available at the address and Web site 

listed in the ADDRESSES section of this 

final rule. 

B. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Impact 

Under Executive Order 12866, if the 

proposed regulations are ‘‘significant’’ 

as defined in section 3(f) of the Order, 

an assessment of the potential costs and 

benefits of the regulatory action must be 

prepared and submitted to the Office of 

Management and Budget. This rule has 

been determined to be not significant 

within the meaning of Executive Order 

12866. 

C. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

Assessment 

All of the actions occur in the 

Exclusive Economic Zone beyond state 

jurisdiction. NOAA has concluded this 

regulatory action does not have 

federalism implications sufficient to 

warrant preparation of a federalism 

assessment under Executive Order 

13132. 

D. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This rule does not contain any new 

information or revisions to the existing 

information collection requirement that 

was previously approved for this rule by 

OMB (OMB Control Number 0648– 

0141) under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1980, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. 

Notwithstanding any other provision 

of the law, no person is required to 

respond to, nor shall any person be 

subject to a penalty for failure to comply 

with, a collection of information subject 

to the requirements of the PRA, unless 

that collection of information displays a 

currently valid OMB Control Number. 

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

In accordance with the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., the 

Chief Counsel for Regulation at the 

Department of Commerce certified to 

the Chief Counsel for Advocacy, Small 

Business Administration that this action 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. The factual basis for this 

certification was published with the 

proposed rule and is not repeated here. 

No comments were received regarding 

the economic impact of this rule. As a 

result, a final regulatory flexibility 

analysis was not prepared. 

VI. References for Citations 

All references that NOAA used as a 

basis for this rule can be made available 

to the public upon request as specified 

in the ADDRESSES section. 

List of Subjects in 15 CFR Part 922 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Coastal zone, Fish, Fisheries, 

Historic preservation, Intergovernmental 

relations, Marine resources, Monuments 

and memorials, Natural resources, 

Wildlife, Wildlife refuges, Wildlife 

management areas. 

Dated: April 18, 2012. 

David M. Kennedy, 

Assistant Administrator for Ocean Services 

and Coastal Zone Management. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, part 922, title 15 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 

PART 922—NATIONAL MARINE 

SANCTUARY PROGRAM 

REGULATIONS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 922 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1431 et seq. 

■ 2. Revise § 922.121 to read as follows: 

§ 922.121 Definitions. 

As used in this subpart: 

Attract or attracting means the 

conduct of any activity that lures or may 

lure any animal in the Sanctuary by 

using food, bait, chum, dyes, decoys 

(e.g., surfboards or body boards used as 

decoys), acoustics or any other means, 

except the mere presence of human 

beings (e.g., swimmers, divers, boaters, 

kayakers, surfers). 

Clean means not containing 

detectable levels of harmful matter. 

Disturb or disturbing a ray or whale 

shark means to, or attempt to touch, 

handle, ride, pursue, chase away, hunt, 

restrain, detain (no matter how 

temporarily), capture, collect, or 

conduct any other activity that disrupts 

or has the potential to disrupt any ray 

or whale shark in the Sanctuary by any 

means. Notwithstanding the above, the 

mere presence of human beings (e.g., 

swimmers, divers, boaters, kayakers) is 

exempted from this definition. 

Harmful matter means any substance, 

or combination of substances, that 

because of its quantity, concentration, or 

physical, chemical, or infectious 

characteristics may pose a present or 

potential threat to Sanctuary resources 

or qualities, including but not limited 

to: Fishing nets, fishing line, hooks, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 82 / Friday, April 27, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 25069 

fuel, oil, and those contaminants 

(regardless of quantity) listed at 40 CFR 

302.4 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 9601(14) of 

the Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Act, as amended. 

No-activity zone means the two 

geographic areas delineated by the 

Department of the Interior in 

stipulations for OCS lease sale 112 over 

and surrounding the East and West 

Flower Garden Banks, and the 

geographic area delineated by the 

Department of the Interior in 

stipulations for OCS lease sale 171 over 

and surrounding Stetson Bank, as areas 

in which activities associated with 

exploration for, development of, or 

production of hydrocarbons are 

prohibited. The precise aliquot part 

description of these areas around the 

East and West Flower Garden Banks are 

provided in appendix B of this subpart; 

the no-activity zone around Stetson 

Bank is defined as the 52 meter isobath. 

These particular aliquot part 

descriptions for the East and West 

Flower Garden Banks, and the 52 meter 

isobath around Stetson Bank, define the 

geographic scope of the ‘‘no-activity 

zones’’ for purposes of the regulations in 

this subpart. The descriptions for the 

East and West Flower Garden Banks noactivity zones are based on the 

‘‘1/41/41/4’’ system formerly used by 

the Department of the Interior, a method 

that delineates a specific portion of a 

block rather than the actual underlying 

isobath. 

■ 3. Revise § 922.122 to read as follows: 

§ 922.122 Prohibited or otherwise 

regulated activities. 

(a) Except as specified in paragraphs 

(c) through (h) of this section, the 

following activities are prohibited and 

thus are unlawful for any person to 

conduct or to cause to be conducted: 

(1) Exploring for, developing, or 

producing oil, gas, or minerals except 

outside of all no-activity zones and 

provided all drilling cuttings and 

drilling fluids are shunted to the seabed 

through a downpipe that terminates an 

appropriate distance, but no more than 

ten meters, from the seabed. 

(2) (i) Anchoring any vessel within 

the Sanctuary. 

(ii) Mooring any vessel within the 

Sanctuary, except that vessels 100 feet 

(30.48 meters) or less in registered 

length may moor to a Sanctuary 

mooring buoy. 

(iii) Mooring a vessel in the Sanctuary 

without clearly displaying the blue and 

white International Code flag ‘‘A’’ 

(‘‘alpha’’ dive flag) or the red and white 

‘‘sports diver’’ flag whenever a SCUBA 

diver from that vessel is in the water 

and removing the ‘‘alpha’’ dive flag or 

‘‘sports diver’’ flag after all SCUBA 

divers exit the water and return back on 

board the vessel, consistent with U.S. 

Coast Guard guidelines relating to sports 

diving as contained within ‘‘Special 

Notice to Mariners’’ (00–208) for the 

Gulf of Mexico. 

(3)(i) Discharging or depositing from 

within or into the Sanctuary any 

material or other matter except: 

(A) Fish, fish parts, chumming 

materials, or bait used in or resulting 

from fishing with conventional hook 

and line gear in the Sanctuary, provided 

that such discharge or deposit occurs 

during the conduct of such fishing 

within the Sanctuary; 

(B) Clean effluent generated 

incidental to vessel use by an operable 

Type I or Type II marine sanitation 

device (U.S. Coast Guard classification) 

approved in accordance with section 

312 of the Federal Water Pollution 

Control Act, as amended (FWPCA), 

33 U.S.C. 1322. Vessel operators must 

lock marine sanitation devices in a 

manner that prevents discharge or 

deposit of untreated sewage; 

(C) Clean vessel deck wash down, 

clean vessel engine cooling water, clean 

vessel generator cooling water, clean 

bilge water, or anchor wash; 

(D) Engine exhaust; 

(E) In areas of the Sanctuary outside 

the no-activity zones, drilling cuttings 

and drilling fluids necessarily 

discharged incidental to the exploration 

for, development of, or production of oil 

or gas in those areas and in accordance 

with the shunting requirements of 

paragraph (a)(1) of this section unless 

such discharge injures a Sanctuary 

resource or quality. 

(ii) Discharging or depositing, from 

beyond the boundaries of the Sanctuary, 

any material or other matter, except 

those listed in paragraphs (a)(3)(i)(A) 

through (D) of this section, that 

subsequently enters the Sanctuary and 

injures a Sanctuary resource or quality. 

(4) Drilling into, dredging, or 

otherwise altering the seabed of the 

Sanctuary (except as allowed under 

paragraph (c) of this section); or 

constructing, placing, or abandoning 

any structure, material, or other matter 

on the seabed of the Sanctuary. 

(5) Injuring or removing, or 

attempting to injure or remove, any 

coral or other bottom formation, 

coralline algae or other plant, marine 

invertebrate, brine-seep biota, or 

carbonate rock within the Sanctuary. 

(6) Taking any marine mammal or 

turtle within the Sanctuary, except as 

permitted by regulations, as amended, 

promulgated under the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 

1361 et seq., and the Endangered 

Species Act, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 

1531 et seq. 

(7) Killing, injuring, attracting, 

touching, or disturbing a ray or whale 

shark in the Sanctuary. Notwithstanding 

the above, the incidental and 

unintentional injury to a ray or whale 

shark as a result of fishing with 

conventional hook and line gear is 

exempted from this prohibition. 

(8) Injuring, catching, harvesting, 

collecting, or feeding, or attempting to 

injure, catch, harvest, collect, or feed, 

any fish within the Sanctuary by use of 

bottom longlines, traps, nets, bottom 

trawls, or any other gear, device, 

equipment, or means except by use of 

conventional hook and line gear. 

(9) Possessing within the Sanctuary 

(regardless of where collected, caught, 

harvested or removed), except for valid 

law enforcement purposes, any 

carbonate rock, coral or other bottom 

formation, coralline algae or other plant, 

marine invertebrate, brine-seep biota, or 

fish (except for fish caught by use of 

conventional hook and line gear). 

(10) Possessing or using within the 

Sanctuary, except possessing while 

passing without interruption through it 

or for valid law enforcement purposes, 

any fishing gear, device, equipment or 

means except conventional hook and 

line gear. 

(11) Possessing, except for valid law 

enforcement purposes, or using 

explosives or releasing electrical charges 

within the Sanctuary. 

(b) If any valid regulation issued by 

any Federal authority of competent 

jurisdiction, regardless of when issued, 

conflicts with a Sanctuary regulation, 

the regulation deemed by the Director as 

more protective of Sanctuary resources 

and qualities shall govern. 

(c) The prohibitions in paragraphs 

(a)(2)(i), (a)(4), and (a)(11) of this section 

do not apply to necessary activities 

conducted in areas of the Sanctuary 

outside the no-activity zones and 

incidental to exploration for, 

development of, or production of oil or 

gas in those areas. 

(d) The prohibitions in paragraphs 

(a)(2) through (11) of this section do not 

apply to activities necessary to respond 

to emergencies threatening life, 

property, or the environment. 

(e)(1) The prohibitions in paragraphs 

(a)(2) through (11) of this section do not 

apply to activities being carried out by 

the Department of Defense as of the 

effective date of Sanctuary designation 

(January 18, 1994). Such activities shall 

be carried out in a manner that 

minimizes any adverse impact on 

Sanctuary resources and qualities. The 

prohibitions in paragraphs (a)(2) 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

25070 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 82 / Friday, April 27, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

through (11) of this section do not apply 

to any new activities carried out by the 

Department of Defense that do not have 

the potential for any significant adverse 

impacts on Sanctuary resources or 

qualities. Such activities shall be carried 

out in a manner that minimizes any 

adverse impact on Sanctuary resources 

and qualities. New activities with the 

potential for significant adverse impacts 

on Sanctuary resources or qualities may 

be exempted from the prohibitions in 

paragraphs (a)(2) through (11) of this 

section by the Director after 

consultation between the Director and 

the Department of Defense. If it is 

determined that an activity may be 

carried out, such activity shall be 

carried out in a manner that minimizes 

any adverse impact on Sanctuary 

resources and qualities. 

(2) In the event of threatened or actual 

destruction of, loss of, or injury to a 

Sanctuary resource or quality resulting 

from an untoward incident, including 

but not limited to spills and groundings, 

caused by a component of the 

Department of Defense, the cognizant 

component shall promptly coordinate 

with the Director for the purpose of 

taking appropriate actions to respond to 

and mitigate the harm and, if possible, 

restore or replace the Sanctuary 

resource or quality. 

(f) The prohibitions in paragraphs 

(a)(2) through (11) of this section do not 

apply to any activity executed in 

accordance with the scope, purpose, 

terms, and conditions of a National 

Marine Sanctuary permit issued 

pursuant to § 922.48 and § 922.123 or a 

Special Use permit issued pursuant to 

section 310 of the Act. 

(g) The prohibitions in paragraphs 

(a)(2) through (11) of this section do not 

apply to any activity authorized by any 

lease, permit, license, approval or other 

authorization issued after January 18, 

1994, provided that the applicant 

complies with § 922.49, the Director 

notifies the applicant and authorizing 

agency that he or she does not object to 

issuance of the authorization, and the 

applicant complies with any terms and 

conditions the Director deems necessary 

to protect Sanctuary resources and 

qualities. 

(h) Notwithstanding paragraphs (f) 

and (g) of this section, in no event may 

the Director issue a National Marine 

Sanctuary permit under § 922.48 and 

§ 922.123 or a Special Use permit under 

section 10 of the Act authorizing, or 

otherwise approve, the exploration for, 

development of, or production of oil, 

gas, or minerals in a no-activity zone. 

Any leases, permits, approvals, or other 

authorizations authorizing the 

exploration for, development of, or 

production of oil, gas, or minerals in a 

no-activity zone and issued after the 

January 18, 1994 shall be invalid. 

■ 4. Amend § 922.123 by revising 

paragraphs (a) through (c) as follows: 

§ 922.123 Permit procedures and criteria. 

(a) A person may conduct an activity 

prohibited by § 922.122(a)(2) through 

(11) if conducted in accordance with the 

scope, purpose, terms, and conditions of 

a permit issued under this section and 

§ 922.48. 

(b) Applications for such permits 

should be addressed to the Director, 

Office of National Marine Sanctuaries; 

Attn: Superintendent, Flower Garden 

Banks National Marine Sanctuary, 4700 

Avenue U, Building 216, Galveston, TX 

77551. 

(c) The Director, at his or her 

discretion, may issue a permit, subject 

to such terms and conditions as he or 

she deems appropriate, to conduct an 

activity prohibited by § 922.122(a)(2) 

through (11), if the Director finds that 

the activity will: Further research 

related to Sanctuary resources; further 

the educational, natural or historical 

resource value of the Sanctuary; further 

salvage or recovery operations in or near 

the Sanctuary in connection with a 

recent air or marine casualty; or assist 

in managing the Sanctuary. In deciding 

whether to issue a permit, the Director 

shall consider such factors as: The 

professional qualifications and financial 

ability of the applicant as related to the 

proposed activity; the duration of the 

activity and the duration of its effects; 

the appropriateness of the methods and 

procedures proposed by the applicant 

for the conduct of the activity; the 

extent to which the conduct of the 

activity may diminish or enhance 

Sanctuary resources and qualities; the 

cumulative effects of the activity; and 

the end value of the activity. In 

addition, the Director may consider 

such other factors as he or she deems 

appropriate. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2012–10093 Filed 4–26–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–NK–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 100 

[Docket No. USCG–2012–0046] 

RIN 1625–AA08 

Special Local Regulation for Marine 

Events; Temporary Change of Dates 

for Recurring Marine Events in the 

Fifth Coast Guard District, Ocean City 

Maryland Offshore Grand Prix, Ocean 

City, MD 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Temporary final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is 

temporarily changing the enforcement 

period for a special local regulation for 

one recurring marine event in the Fifth 

Coast Guard District, specifically, the 

‘‘Ocean City Maryland Offshore Grand 

Prix,’’ hydroplane races on the North 

Atlantic Ocean near Ocean City, 

Maryland. The event consists of 

approximately 50 V-hull and twin-hull 

inboard hydroplanes racing in heats 

counter-clockwise around an oval race 

course, this regulation is necessary to 

provide for the safety of life on 

navigable waters during the event. This 

action is intended to restrict vessel 

traffic in portions of the North Atlantic 

Ocean near Ocean City, Maryland 

during the event. 

DATES: This rule is effective from 

11 a.m. to 5 p.m. on May 13, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Comments and material 

received from the public, as well as 

documents mentioned in this preamble 

as being available in the docket are part 

of docket USCG–2012–0046 and are 

available online by going to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG– 

2012–0046 in the ‘‘Search’’ box, and 

then clicking ‘‘Search.’’ They are also 

available for inspection or copying at 

the Docket Management Facility (M–30), 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 

West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 

Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this temporary 

rule, call or email LCDR Hector Cintron, 

Waterways Management Division Chief, 

Sector Hampton Roads, Coast Guard; 

telephone 757–668–5581, email 

Hector.L.Cintron@uscg.mil. If you have 

questions on viewing the docket, call 

Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, 

Docket Operations, telephone 202–366– 

9826. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES