[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 11 (Tuesday, January 19, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 4937-4961]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-00887]



[[Page 4937]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

15 CFR Part 922

[Docket No. 210107-0004]
RIN 0648-BA21


Expansion of Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary

AGENCY: Office of National Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS), National Ocean 
Service (NOS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 
Department of Commerce (DOC).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 
issues final regulations to implement the expansion of the boundaries 
of Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary (FGBNMS or sanctuary) 
and revise the sanctuary's terms of designation. The purpose of this 
action is to expand the sanctuary to include portions of 14 additional 
reefs and banks in the northwestern Gulf of Mexico, representing 
approximately a 104 square mile increase in area. With this action, the 
existing FGBNMS regulations will apply to the expanded locations.

DATES: Effective Date: Pursuant to section 304(b) of the National 
Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA) (16 U.S.C. 1434(b)), the designation and 
regulations shall take effect and become final after the close of a 
review period of forty-five days of continuous session of Congress, 
beginning on the date on which this document is published. The public 
can track the days of Congressional session at https://www.congress.gov/days-in-session. After the close of the forty-five 
days of continuous session of Congress, NOAA will publish a document 
announcing the effective date of the final regulations in the Federal 
Register.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) 
described in this rule and the record of decision (ROD) are available 
at https://flowergarden.noaa.gov/management/sanctuaryexpansion.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: George P. Schmahl, Superintendent, 
Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary, 4700 Avenue U, Building 
216, Galveston, Texas 77551, at 409-356-0383, or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#89efeeebecf1f9e8e7fae0e6e7c9e7e6e8e8a7eee6ff"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f6909194938e869798859f9998b698999797d8919980">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

1. Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary

    Located in the northwestern Gulf of Mexico, 70 to 115 nautical 
miles (130 to 213 kilometers) off the coasts of Texas and Louisiana, 
FGBNMS encompasses approximately 56 square miles and includes three 
separate undersea features: East Flower Garden Bank, West Flower Garden 
Bank, and Stetson Bank. The banks range in depth from 55 feet (17 
meters) to nearly 500 feet (152 meters), and are geological formations 
created by the movement of ancient salt deposits pushed up through 
overlying sedimentary layers.
    The banks provide a wide range of habitat conditions that support 
several distinct biological communities, including the northernmost 
coral reefs in the continental United States and mesophotic coral 
habitats. These and similar formations throughout the northwestern Gulf 
of Mexico provide the foundation for essential habitat for numerous 
marine species, including a variety of fish species of commercial and 
recreational importance, and several endangered or threatened species, 
including sea turtles and mobula rays. The combination of location and 
geology makes the sanctuary an extremely productive and diverse 
ecosystem.
    NOAA issued a final rule to implement the designation of FGBNMS on 
December 5, 1991 (56 FR 63634). Congress subsequently passed a law 
recognizing the designation on January 17, 1992 (Pub. L. 102-251, Title 
I, Sec. 101). At that time, the sanctuary consisted of two areas known 
as East and West Flower Garden Banks (56 FR 63634). Among other things, 
FGBNMS regulated a narrow range of activities, established permit and 
certification procedures, and exempted certain U.S. Department of 
Defense (DOD) activities from the sanctuary's prohibitions (56 FR 
63634). Those regulations became effective on January 18, 1994 (58 FR 
65664). In 1996, Congress added Stetson Bank to the sanctuary (Pub. L. 
104-283). The boundaries of Stetson Bank and West Flower Garden Bank 
were later amended to improve administrative efficiencies and increase 
the precision of all boundary coordinates based on new positioning 
technology (65 FR 81175, Dec. 22, 2000). FGBNMS regulations can be 
found at 15 CFR part 922, subpart L, and the sanctuary management plan 
may be found on the FGBNMS website.\1\ As a result of this action, 
FGBNMS is being expanded to a total of 160.4 square miles, with the 
existing regulations applying to the expansion area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ https://flowergarden.noaa.gov/management/2012mgmtplan.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Need for Action

    The NMSA authorizes the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to 
designate and protect, as national marine sanctuaries, areas of the 
marine environment that are of special national significance due to 
their conservation, recreational, ecological, historical, scientific, 
cultural, archeological, educational, or aesthetic qualities. Day-to-
day management of national marine sanctuaries is delegated by the 
Secretary to ONMS. The primary objective of the NMSA is to protect 
nationally significant marine resources, including biological features 
such as coral reefs, and cultural resources, such as historic 
shipwrecks and archaeological sites. The mission of FGBNMS is to 
identify, protect, conserve, and enhance the natural and cultural 
resources, values, and qualities of the sanctuary and its regional 
environment for this and future generations.
    This action responds to the need to provide comprehensive and 
coordinated management of, and additional regulatory protection for, 
sensitive underwater features and marine habitats associated with 
continental shelf-edge reefs and banks in the northwestern Gulf of 
Mexico. The current jurisdictional regime divides authority among 
several governmental entities that regulate offshore energy exploration 
(Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM)), fishing (Gulf of Mexico 
Fishery Management Council (GMFMC)), and water quality (Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA)), but does not provide comprehensive and 
effective management for the full range of activities that impact the 
sensitive reefs and banks in the region. For example, BOEM has 
established No Activity Zones (NAZs) that prohibit anchoring only by 
vessels engaged in development activities and platform services 
specific to a particular lease, while anchoring by other vessels 
remains unregulated. Further, these anchoring regulations in the NAZs 
apply only on a lease-by-lease basis. Other vessel ground tackle 
(including anchors, chains, and cables) and marine salvage activities 
were unregulated and have caused significant injury to sensitive 
biological communities. Sanctuary designation will allow for additional 
protection of these reefs and banks from other bottom-disturbing 
activities, which are otherwise unregulated at this time.

[[Page 4938]]

    The sanctuary expansion areas are recognized as hotspots of marine 
biodiversity that provide vital habitat for many important species in 
the Gulf of Mexico region. They are home to the most significant 
examples of coral and algal reefs, mesophotic and deepwater coral 
communities, and other biological assemblages in the Gulf of Mexico. 
Furthermore, these areas provide important habitat for vulnerable 
species such as mobula rays, sea turtles, and whale sharks, while 
serving as nurseries for numerous fish species of commercial and 
recreational importance. As such, most of these areas have also been 
identified as nationally significant through their designation as 
Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPC) by the GMFMC and as NAZs by 
BOEM. These habitats are vulnerable to a variety of known and potential 
impacts, including large vessel anchoring, marine salvage operations, 
fishing techniques that may injure benthic habitat (e.g., trawling, 
bottom-tending gear), and certain oil and gas exploration and 
development activities. These impacts will more effectively be 
addressed within the expanded areas through the comprehensive habitat 
conservation and management authorities under the NMSA. The protection 
of these ecologically significant sites would increase the resilience 
of marine ecosystems and enhance the sustainability of the region's 
thriving recreation, tourism, and commercial economies. Ultimately, 
expanding FGBNMS will help ensure that valuable marine resources remain 
available for the use and enjoyment of future generations of Americans.
    This sanctuary expansion is the outcome of decades of scientific 
research and growing public recognition of the need for coordinated 
protection of significant offshore marine places in the northwestern 
Gulf of Mexico region. Protecting additional habitat in the 
northwestern Gulf of Mexico emerged as one of the highest priorities 
identified during a vigorous public review process of FGBNMS management 
issues. Subsequently, ``Sanctuary Expansion'' was incorporated as a 
discrete action plan in the 2012 revision of the sanctuary's management 
plan. The region is utilized for a variety of recreational, commercial, 
and industrial purposes, and there are ongoing impacts from bottom-
disturbing activities, such as large vessel anchoring and marine 
salvage, on the sensitive biological resources and geological features 
associated with many reefs and banks in the area. Therefore, pursuant 
to the NMSA's purpose to ``facilitate to the extent compatible with the 
primary objective of resource protection, all public and private uses 
of the resources of these marine areas,'' FGBNMS can further resource 
protection while balancing multiple uses. This action will expand 
FGBNMS by incorporating portions of selected reefs and banks in the 
northwestern Gulf of Mexico. In doing so, this action will provide 
management of and protection for nationally significant areas with 
biological, ecological, and/or structural links to the existing 
sanctuary, including vulnerable mesophotic and deep benthic habitat 
sites, while providing important opportunities for research and 
recovery of resources from observed impacts. These areas contain the 
most significant examples of mesophotic coral communities in the United 
States, including some of the highest known densities (colonies per 
square meter) and species richness of mesophotic corals (Cairns et al. 
2017). In addition, and as noted above, many banks in the expansion 
area have also been recognized by BOEM and GMFMC as nationally 
significant and designated as HAPCs and NAZs.

II. History of the FGBNMS Expansion Process

1. Management Plan Review

    NOAA is required by NMSA Section 304(e) to periodically review 
sanctuary management plans to ensure that sanctuary management 
continues to effectively conserve, protect, and enhance the nationally 
significant living and cultural resources at each site. Management 
plans generally outline regulatory goals, describe boundaries, identify 
staffing and budgetary needs, and set priorities and performance 
measures for resource protection, research, and education programs. 
Management plans also guide the development of future management 
activities.
    The FGBNMS management plan review process began in 2006 with a 
series of scoping meetings to obtain information about the public's 
interests and priorities for FGBNMS management (71 FR 52757; September 
7, 2006). Subsequently, NOAA 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. 
Protecting additional nationally significant habitat in the 
northwestern Gulf of Mexico emerged as one of the highest priority 
issues for the sanctuary during the FGBNMS management plan review 
process.
    In 2007, the FGBNMS Advisory Council, using information developed 
by its Boundary Expansion Working Group (BEWG), recommended a range of 
sanctuary boundary expansion alternatives. Based on this input, and 
information obtained through a subsequent public process, NOAA prepared 
a revised management plan (77 FR 25060, April 27, 2012) that contained 
six action plans, including one that specifically addressed sanctuary 
expansion. The Sanctuary Expansion Action Plan outlined a strategy to 
expand the protected areas to include additional reefs and banks in the 
northwestern Gulf of Mexico, and to develop a Draft Environmental 
Impact Statement (DEIS) to evaluate appropriate expansion alternatives. 
The recommended expansion alternative, as identified by the FGBNMS 
Advisory Council in 2007, was included in the Sanctuary Expansion 
Action Plan. This recommendation included nine additional reefs and 
banks, encompassing approximately 281 square miles.

2. Boundary Expansion Notice of Intent

    On February 3, 2015, NOAA published a Notice of Intent (NOI) to 
prepare a DEIS for expanding FGBNMS boundaries (80 FR 5699). The NOI 
solicited public input on the range and significance of issues related 
to sanctuary expansion, including potential boundary configurations, 
resources to be protected, other issues NOAA should consider, and any 
information that should be included in the resource analysis. The 
public scoping period was open through April 6, 2015, during which time 
ONMS held three public hearings and interested parties submitted both 
written and oral comments.
    NOAA received approximately 200 comments during the scoping period. 
Most commenters were strongly supportive of the concept of sanctuary 
expansion. In addition to broad general support, some comments 
expressed conditional support while raising user concerns primarily 
relating to the potential impact of sanctuary expansion on the offshore 
oil and gas industry and historic fishing practices. Other commenters 
recommended that NOAA consider a broader geographical area than the 
Sanctuary Expansion Action Plan identified, especially in light of the 
2010 BP/Deepwater Horizon oil spill and new information that became 
available since the 2007 FGBNMS Advisory Council recommendation. This 
information was considered during the development of the expansion 
alternatives in the DEIS.

[[Page 4939]]

3. Draft Environmental Impact Statement

    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42 
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and the NMSA (16 U.S.C. 1434), NOAA prepared and 
released a DEIS (81 FR 37576, June 10, 2016). The DEIS considered 
alternatives for the proposed expansion of boundaries at FGBNMS and 
application of the existing sanctuary regulations and management 
actions to the expanded area. The DEIS evaluated the environmental 
consequences of the alternatives and provided an in-depth resource 
assessment. The action alternatives in the DEIS would expand the 
network of protected areas within FGBNMS by incorporating selected 
reefs, banks, and other features throughout the north central Gulf of 
Mexico.
    The DEIS evaluated five alternatives, ranging from ``no action'' 
(maintaining the current boundaries) to one that included a total of 45 
discrete boundary units and encompassed approximately 935 square miles. 
The action discussed in this rulemaking falls within the bounds of the 
DEIS alternatives as discussed below in part II, section 5 of this 
final rule and in the supplemental information report which is 
available at the FGBNMS website.\2\ NOAA's preferred alternative in the 
2016 DEIS (Alternative 3) sought to expand the existing sanctuary from 
approximately 56 square miles to approximately 383 square miles, 
including additional important and sensitive marine habitat areas in 
the northwestern Gulf of Mexico. This alternative would have applied 
the existing sanctuary regulations and management actions to the 
expanded area. The 2016 preferred alternative included 15 reefs and 
banks (in addition to those contained within the existing 3 sanctuary 
units) encompassed within 11 discrete boundary polygons, including 
multi-bank complexes. No significant adverse impacts to the human 
environment were identified under any alternative considered in the 
DEIS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ https://flowergarden.noaa.gov/management/expansionnpr.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In June 2016, NOAA opened a public comment period on the DEIS for 
sixty-nine (69) days, which closed on August 19, 2016. During this 
public comment period, NOAA also held five (5) in person public 
hearings in Galveston, TX; Houston, TX; New Orleans, LA; Lafayette, LA; 
and Mobile, AL. NOAA received 1,421 separate comments, including three 
letter campaigns and one petition, each with multiple signatories. All 
written comments on the DEIS are available at the Regulations.gov 
website.\3\ NOAA's response to the public comments are set forth in 
Appendix A of the FEIS, which was made available to the public on 
December 11, 2020 (85 FR 80093).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=NOAA-NOS-2016-0059.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. NOAA's Revised Preferred Alternative and Supplemental Information 
Report

    In response to concerns raised primarily by the oil and gas 
industry regarding the potential impacts to offshore energy operations 
arising from the Preferred Alternative presented in the 2016 DEIS, the 
FGBNMS Advisory Council (Advisory Council) established a new BEWG to 
review NOAA's expansion proposal and make a recommendation. Between 
July 2016 and May 2018, the BEWG met 21 times, and considered a variety 
of topics, including a range of boundary and regulatory issues. The 
BEWG recommended revised FGBNMS expansion boundaries that tracked the 
BOEM-designated NAZs. NAZs are areas within which no operations, 
anchoring, or structures are allowed for oil and gas operations. The 
NAZs were developed in the 1970-1980's to protect the shallowest 
portion of the reefs and banks. Based primarily on the May 2018 FGBNMS 
Advisory Council recommendation, along with input received from public 
comments and consultation with the GMFMC and various Federal agencies, 
NOAA revised the preferred alternative.
    In the revised preferred alternative, NOAA reduced the size of the 
expansion areas proposed in the 2016 DEIS preferred alternative to 
promote compatibility with users and reduce potential economic impacts 
to the offshore energy and fishing industries. On March 22, 2019, NOAA 
evaluated changes to the 2016 DEIS preferred alternative in a 
Supplemental Information Report (SIR). Through this review, NOAA 
determined that preparing a supplement to the 2016 DEIS is neither 
required nor necessary under NEPA. The SIR is available on the FGBNMS 
website.\4\ Pursuant to applicable Council on Environmental Quality 
(CEQ) guidance, NOAA's rationale for the revised preferred alternative 
is now presented as NOAA's Final Preferred Alternative in the FEIS and 
part II, section 7 of this final rule and the ROD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ https://nmsflowergarden.blob.core.windows.net/flowergarden-prod/media/archive/doc/expansion/deissupplementalinforeport.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. The Proposed Rule

    On May 1, 2020, NOAA published a proposed rule which would expand 
the boundaries of FGBNMS from approximately 56 square miles to 160 
square miles (85 FR 25359 May 1, 2020). This action would add 14 banks, 
for a total of 17 banks, represented in 19 polygons (including 3 banks 
with multi-polygons), and apply the existing sanctuary regulations and 
management plan to the expanded sanctuary boundaries. Under the 
existing sanctuary regulations, only conventional hook and line gear 
would be permissible in the expanded sanctuary boundaries.
    NOAA solicited public comment on the proposed rule from May 1, 2020 
to July 3, 2020, including specifically on whether to provide 
exemptions for spearfishing and pelagic longline in the expanded area. 
NOAA accepted comments in the form of letters and written comments 
through electronic submissions to http://regulations.gov, letters 
submitted by mail, and public hearings. As a result of the Coronavirus 
global pandemic and restrictions on public gatherings, three virtual 
public hearings were held via Gotowebinar[supreg].
    NOAA received 485 separate comments, including four letter 
campaigns and four petitions, each with multiple signatories, for a 
total of 36,111 comments. All written public comments on the proposed 
expansion are available on the Regulations.gov website.\5\ NOAA's 
responses to the public comments are available in Appendix A of the 
FEIS, and in section IV of this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ https://www.regulations.gov/docketBrowser?rpp=25&so=DESC&sb=commentDueDate&po=0&D=NOAA-NOS-2019-0033.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Summary of Final Regulations

    With this final rule, NOAA is revising the FGBNMS regulations at 15 
CFR part 922, subpart L, as follows.

1. Sanctuary Boundary Expansion

    NOAA is amending the sanctuary boundary descriptions at 15 CFR part 
922, subpart L, and the terms of designation in order to expand the 
boundaries of FGBNMS to include portions of 14 additional reefs and 
banks in the sanctuary, adding approximately 104 square miles, bringing 
the total area to 160.4 square miles and encompassing 17 banks. The 
boundary changes were selected through a public process to identify and 
assess marine areas that could more effectively complement current 
management authorities or enhance natural and cultural resource values.

[[Page 4940]]

Collectively, these new areas capture a greater diversity of habitats 
and biological resources than currently protected by FGBNMS. Inclusion 
of these areas within the sanctuary system will provide additional 
regulatory protection, additional management actions and initiatives, 
and improved public awareness of their natural resource values. 
Detailed maps of these boundary changes are available on the FGBNMS 
website.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ https://flowergarden.noaa.gov/management/sanctuaryexpansion.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under this action, NOAA is expanding the boundaries of the 
sanctuary by 104.2 square miles from 56.2 square miles to 160.4 square 
miles as follows:

a. Stetson Bank--increase of area by 0.6 square miles from 0.8 square 
miles to 1.4 square miles
b. West Flower Garden Bank--increase of area by 7.22 square miles from 
29.94 square miles to 37.16 square miles
c. East Flower Garden Bank--increase of area by 2.4 square miles from 
25.4 square miles to 27.8 square miles
d. Horseshoe Bank--28.7 square miles
e. MacNeil Bank--2.7 square miles
f. Rankin/28 Fathom Banks--5.6 square miles
g. Bright Bank--7.7 square miles
h. Geyer Bank--11.5 square miles
i. Elvers Bank--4.6 square miles
j. McGrail Bank--4.7 square miles
k. Sonnier Bank--3.1 square miles
l. Bouma Bank--7.7 square miles
m. Rezak Bank--3.7 square miles
n. Sidner Bank--2.0 square miles
o. Alderdice Bank--5.0 square miles
p. Parker Bank--7.0 square miles

2. Apply the Existing Sanctuary Regulations and Management Action to 
the Expanded Area

    NOAA will apply the existing sanctuary regulations (including 
regulatory prohibitions set forth in Sec.  922.122) and the existing 
management plan \7\ to the expanded sanctuary boundary in order to 
provide for more comprehensive management and protection of sensitive 
underwater features and marine habitats associated with continental 
shelf-edge reefs and banks in the northwestern Gulf of Mexico. 
Accordingly, 15 CFR 922.122(e) will be updated to reflect the effective 
date of the sanctuary expansion, and no further amendments of the 
regulatory text in 15 CFR part 922 are necessary to implement this 
action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ https://flowergarden.noaa.gov/management/2012mgmtplan.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Department of Defense Activities

    NOAA's decision to amend the effective date in Sec.  922.122(e) 
addresses concerns raised by the Department of the Navy (DON) during 
coordination in development of this final rule. In the final rule, NOAA 
clarifies that the prohibitions in Sec.  922.122(a)(2) through (11) do 
not apply to the activities being carried out by the Department of 
Defense as of the date of sanctuary expansion.

4. Terms of Designation

    Section 304(a)(4) of the NMSA requires that the terms of 
designation include the geographic area of the sanctuary; the 
characteristics of the area that give it conservation, recreational, 
ecological, historical, research, educational, or aesthetic value; and 
the types of activities that will be subject to regulation by the 
Secretary of Commerce to protect these characteristics. Section 
304(a)(4) also specifies that the terms of designation may be modified 
only by the same procedures by which the original designation was made.
    The terms of designation for FGBNMS was first published in 1991 (56 
FR 63637), and became effective in 1994 (58 FR 65664). The terms of 
designation were not incorporated into the Code of Federal Regulations, 
and, whenever there was a proposed regulatory change, NOAA and the 
general public had to refer to the preamble of the 1991 final rule to 
understand the nature and scope of the terms of designation. With this 
final rule, NOAA is making the terms of designation more readily 
available to the general public by amending the FGBNMS regulations at 
15 CFR part 922, subpart L, to incorporate the terms of designation as 
a new appendix B to the FGBNMS regulations. NOAA is amending Article 
II. Description of the Area to include Stetson Bank (added by Congress 
in 1996 pursuant to Pub. L. 104-283) and the additional reefs and banks 
included in this expansion, add a new section relating to the U.S. 
Department of Defense (DoD) exemption, and revising the ``Consistency 
with International Law'' section of the terms of designation in order 
to address comments raised by the U.S. Department of State during 
interagency consultation.

5. No Exemptions for Spearfishing and Pelagic Longline Fishing in the 
Expanded Sanctuary

    Based on the public comments received on the proposed rule, NOAA 
has decided not to provide exemptions for spearfishing or pelagic 
longline fishing. The rationale for the decisions not to provide 
exemptions for spearfishing or pelagic longline fishing are addressed 
below in section IV. Responses to Comments.

IV. Response to Comments

    NOAA received 1,421 individual (8,491 campaigns and petitions) 
public comments on the DEIS and 485 individual (36,111 including 
campaigns and petitions) public comments on the proposed rule. The 
majority of comments expressed general support for sanctuary expansion, 
others expressed concerns about the reduced size of the boundaries, and 
few comments were received opposing the expansion of FGBNMS. Of the 
comments received during this action, approximately one third supported 
the revised preferred alternative in the proposed rule (which is 
identified as NOAA's Final Preferred Alternative in the FEIS). Public 
comments identified specific geographic locations of concern that were 
not included in the revised preferred alternative. Comments raised 
concerns about boundary enforcement, essential fish habitat, 
preservation of biodiversity, connectivity between bank areas, 
mesophotic/deepwater coral ecosystems, mobula rays, whale sharks, sea 
turtles, sharks, marine mammals, and commercial and recreationally 
important fish. Many of the comments supportive of the proposed 
expansion referred to industrial, environmental, and global impacts.
    In response to NOAA's request for public comment on fishery 
exemptions for pelagic longline fishing and spearfishing with sanctuary 
expansion, 25,641 comments opposed an exemption for pelagic longline 
fishing, 23,353 opposed an exemption for spearfishing, 2 comments 
supported allowing pelagic longline fishing, and 8 comments indicated 
conditional support for spearfishing. Conditional support for 
spearfishing included an exemption for breath-hold only spearfishing, 
establishing an initial limited capacity fishery that could be assessed 
at a reduced number of banks, and an exemption for lionfish only. NOAA 
analyzed comments received during this process and considered them in 
preparation of this FEIS, as well as developed agency responses. NOAA's 
responses to the public comments are included in Appendix A of the FEIS 
and in this document (Part IV).
    NOAA has consolidated public comments from the DEIS and proposed 
rule and collectively responds to those comments here and in Appendix A 
of the FEIS.

[[Page 4941]]

General Support and Opposition of Proposed Sanctuary Expansion

    1. Comment: NOAA received comments that supported the proposed 
expansion of the sanctuary and encouraged NOAA to proceed with the 
expansion process. Comments also supported the Revised Preferred 
Alternative (NOAA's Final Preferred Alternative).
    Response: Comment accepted. NOAA has considered these comments in 
carrying the Revised Preferred Alternative forward to the Final 
Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and final rule as NOAA's Final 
Preferred Alternative.
    2. Comment: NOAA received comments that opposed the overall 
sanctuary expansion process citing reasons including: (1) Existing 
protections for sensitive resources; (2) concern of restricting use/
access to the public; (3) safety, budget, and management limitations; 
and (4) socioeconomic consequences to certain industries.
    Response: NOAA determined the proposed action responds to the need 
to provide additional protection and management of sensitive underwater 
features and marine habitats associated with continental shelf-edge 
reefs and banks in the northwestern Gulf of Mexico. The current 
jurisdictional regime divides authority among several governmental 
entities that regulate offshore energy exploration (Bureau of Ocean and 
Energy Management (BOEM)), fishing (Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management 
Council (GMFMC)), and water quality (Environmental Protection Agency 
(EPA)). NOAA has determined the current jurisdictional regime does not 
provide comprehensive and effective management for the full range of 
activities that impact the sensitive reefs and banks in the region. 
Chapter 2 of the FEIS and Part I, Section 2 of the preamble to the 
final rule describe the purpose and need for this proposed expansion. 
Extending the sanctuary boundary to new reefs and banks in the 
northwestern Gulf of Mexico promotes ecological conservation and 
biodiversity, expands sanctuary management efforts in the region, and 
helps to balance multiple uses.

Boundaries

    3. Comment: NOAA received comments that generally supported 
expansion, but opposed the boundaries in the Revised Preferred 
Alternative (NOAA's Final Preferred Alternative). These comments 
indicated that the proposed boundaries of the Revised Preferred 
Alternative were too small or would exclude some ``topographic highs'' 
and reduce migratory corridors, or that NOAA should select a larger 
boundary alternative. Additionally, comments noted the removal of 
buffer zones entirely in the Revised Preferred Alternative and that 
very small areas were created at some banks (e.g., Elvers, McGrail), 
which results in fragmented connectivity and diminished ecological and 
species function. Comments also stated NOAA's Preferred Alternative in 
the DEIS (Alternative 3) excluded 39 nationally significant areas and 9 
nationally significant shipwrecks.
    Response: NOAA developed the Final Preferred Alternative in 
response to public comments and recommendations from the Sanctuary 
Advisory Council. NOAA's Final Preferred Alternative was based on 
boundary configurations developed by the Advisory Council's Boundary 
Expansion Working Group and the Advisory Council's 2018 recommendation. 
It was also based on research conducted by the Office of National 
Marine Sanctuaries, consultation with other Federal and state agencies, 
strong public support and comment during public meetings preceding this 
proposal, and extensive input from oil and gas, and fishing interests. 
The Final Preferred Alternative further follows the National Marine 
Sanctuaries Act's goal of facilitating, to the extent compatible with 
the primary objective of resource protection, all public and private 
uses of the resources.
    NOAA modified DEIS Alternative 3 to develop the Final Preferred 
Alternative under which the boundaries were drawn more tightly around 
the shallowest portions of the geological features identified in 
Alternative 3. The new boundaries closely follow the BOEM No Activity 
Zones, which have prohibitions on oil and gas exploration and 
development, but allow other bottom-disturbing activities that can 
cause severe negative impacts to the benthic areas. NOAA's Final 
Preferred Alternative expands the sanctuary by approximately 104 square 
miles, to include additional important and sensitive marine habitat 
areas outside the current sanctuary boundary, which will offer 
additional protection not provided by BOEM's current regulations. NOAA 
has determined the Final Preferred Alternative minimizes the impact to 
offshore energy exploration and production while providing substantial 
protection to sensitive marine habitats of national significance and 
meeting the expansion objectives as identified in the 2012 FGBNMS 
management plan and 2016 DEIS. Refer also to FEIS Chapter 3, Section 
3.2 for additional details on the development of NOAA's proposed 
action.
    NOAA submits there were more environmentally preferable 
alternatives assessed in the DEIS; however, ONMS has identified the 
Final Preferred Alternative as one that, based on strong input from the 
public and the Sanctuary Advisory Council, provides a significant 
environmental benefit, can be managed with current FGBNMS operational 
capacity, and minimizes negative impact to industry activities.
    NOAA has determined the Final Preferred Alternative remains within 
the range of alternatives and impacts analyzed in the 2016 DEIS. Also 
refer to NOAA's Supplemental Information Report and FEIS Chapter 3, 
Section 3.2 for additional details on the development of the Final 
Preferred Alternative.
    4. Comment: NOAA received comments requesting additional areas and 
banks to be considered in the proposed expansion process, including: 
Coffee Lump, 32 Fathom, Claypile, Applebaum, 29 Fathom, Fishnet, 
Phleger, Sweet, and Jakkula Banks, Florida Middle Grounds, Madison/
Swanson, and Alabama Pinnacles, north central Gulf of Mexico, Ewing 
Bank (whale shark aggregation), Bryant Bank, more of Bright Bank 
complex, and the Deep Water Horizon (Deepwater Horizon) rig/well area.
    Response: NOAA rejects the requests to add these additional banks 
and areas for two primary reasons, (1) there was insufficient data to 
characterize these areas as nationally significant, or (2) they were 
too far from the existing sanctuary. NOAA considered including 32 
Fathom Bank, Applebaum Bank, Coffee Lump Bank, Fishnet Bank, Phleger 
Bank, Sweet Bank, Diaphus Bank, and Sackett Bank but determined either 
insufficient data were available to adequately characterize the sites 
or available data does not indicate sufficiently unique, diverse, 
productive, or otherwise nationally significant biological communities 
or geologic features.
    Sites in biogeographic regions other than the north central Gulf of 
Mexico were also eliminated from further consideration; areas to both 
the east and west of the area roughly defined by the 87th and 95th west 
meridians reflect geologic/sedimentary and hydrologic/oceanographic 
settings, as well as biological communities, that are distinctly 
different from those of the north central Gulf of Mexico and are faced 
with distinctly different threats or other conservation issues. 
Features

[[Page 4942]]

eliminated from further consideration based on this distinction include 
Big Dunn Bar, Small Dunn Bar, Blackfish Ridge, Mysterious Bank, the 
South Texas Banks (Dream Bank, Southern Bank, Hospital Bank, North 
Hospital Bank, Aransas Bank, Baker Bank, and South Baker Bank), 
Madison-Swanson, the Florida Middle Grounds, and Pulley Ridge. Bryant 
Bank and more areas of the Bright Bank Complex were primarily excluded 
from the Final Preferred Alternative because of concerns raised from 
the oil and gas industry.
    Although these additional areas were rejected for consideration in 
the current FEIS, FGBNMS will consider extending sanctuary protection 
and management to these additional biogeographic regions and habitat 
types during the next management plan review.
    For more information on how the Final Preferred Alternative was 
developed and selected, refer to FEIS Chapter 1, Sections 1.5 and 
Chapter 3, Sections 3.1 and 3.2.
    5. Comment: NOAA received a comment that requested the agency 
identify areas to redraw boundaries to reduce impact on fishing (i.e., 
northern boundary of MacNeil, northern boundary of Sonnier, and 
northeast boundary of Bouma).
    Response: NOAA considered this request, and following the DEIS, 
slightly reduced the boundaries at these banks to more closely align 
with BOEM designated NAZs. The decrease in proposed expansion area in 
the Final Preferred Alternative was partly in response to requests, 
such as this, to reduce impacts to historical fishing activities. 
Moreover, ONMS has completed consultation with the GMFMC pursuant to 
NMSA section 304(a)(5) regarding the boundaries and fishing regulations 
in the Final Preferred Alternative, and GMFMC concurred with this 
action. See Appendix G of the FEIS for more details on the 304(a)(5) 
consultation.
    6. Comment: NOAA received a comment that requested coordinates for 
all proposed alternatives be included.
    Response: NOAA disagrees. NOAA provided the coordinates of NOAA's 
Final Preferred Alternative in Appendix H of the FEIS. Additionally, 
the coordinates of NOAA's Final Preferred Alternative are included as 
appendix A to the final rule which will be codified in 15 CFR part 922, 
subpart L. NOAA does not believe inclusion of coordinates for all other 
alternatives is necessary. However, maps of all alternatives can be 
reviewed in FEIS Chapter 3 and Appendix D.
    7. Comment: NOAA received comments requesting an explanation of how 
the FGBNMS Advisory Council's recommendations were incorporated 
throughout the expansion process.
    Response: The Sanctuary Advisory Council was involved in developing 
DEIS Alternative 2, reviewing DEIS Alternative 3, and providing 
recommendations to modify the alternative. Ultimately, NOAAs Final 
Preferred Alternative was largely developed by recommendations proposed 
by the Sanctuary Advisory Council. Refer to FEIS Chapter 1, Section 
1.5, which provides background information on development of the DEIS 
alternatives and the process by which NOAA modified DEIS Alternative 3 
to develop the Final Preferred Alternative, including information of 
the Sanctuary Advisory Council's involvement. See response to comment 
#3 pertaining to the Revised Preferred Alternative.
    8. Comment: NOAA received comments that requested a buffer around 
reefs to enhance connectivity, compliance, and enforcement, as well as 
to keep out any structure that may act as a vector for invasive species 
spread.
    Response: Buffers were considered during the FGBNMS Advisory 
Council's Boundary Expansion Working Group meetings and were rejected 
due to potential impacts to the oil and gas and fisheries industries. 
The 2018 Sanctuary Advisory Council recommendation for sanctuary 
expansion did not include buffers. Refer to FEIS Chapter 1, Section 1.5 
for details regarding development of the Final Preferred Alternative 
and associated interagency consultations and coordination.
    9. Comment: NOAA received comments suggesting the boundaries 
proposed in the Revised Preferred Alternative (NOAA's Final Preferred 
Alternative) were too complicated for enforcement purposes, stating 
that simpler boundaries make enforcement easier, which results in 
better compliance of user groups.
    Response: Along with input for NOAA's Office of Law Enforcement 
(OLE), ONMS considered this concern and determined the expansion 
boundaries are enforceable as proposed in NOAA's Final Preferred 
Alternative. The boundaries achieve a polygonal configuration, which is 
recommended by the OLE, and closely follow the existing BOEM designated 
NAZ boundaries. This polygonal approach uses fewer vertices, 
simplifying the NAZ boundaries and allowing for heightened 
enforceability and user compliance.
    ONMS believes that vessels visiting the sanctuary are likely to be 
equipped with onboard mapping technology (e.g., Global Positioning 
System) that would inform operators of their vessel's position relative 
to the expanded sanctuary boundary. In light of the technological 
capabilities of onboard positioning systems, ONMS decided to continue 
with the boundary configuration of the Final Preferred Alternative, 
confident that user compliance and agency enforcement can be achieved.
    Please refer to FEIS Chapter 3, Section 3.2 for more details 
regarding development of the Final Preferred Alternative boundaries.
    10. Comment: NOAA received comments related to the influence of the 
oil and gas industry on the boundary configurations of the proposed 
expansion of banks and reefs, including a claim that the FGBNMS 
Advisory Council's Boundary Expansion Working Group was biased (towards 
the oil and gas industry).
    Response: The BEWG included Advisory Council members representing 
multiple stakeholder groups including the oil and gas industry, 
commercial and recreational fishing industries, recreational diving, 
science, and conservation. The BEWG presented its revised FGBNMS 
expansion boundaries recommendation to the full FGBNMS Advisory 
Council, representing all user groups, on May 9, 2018, and the 
recommendation was accepted by the Advisory Council and subsequently by 
ONMS as proposed. Refer to responses to comments #3 and #7 and FEIS 
Chapter 3, Section 3.2, which details the Sanctuary Advisory Council's 
BEWG process for developing the Revised Preferred Alternative.

Purpose and Need for Proposed Expansion/Regulations

    11. Comment: NOAA received comments suggesting that the purpose 
and/or need for the proposed expansion was not warranted, citing 
several reasons including: (1) Need for protection was not 
demonstrated; (2) expansion would offer no benefit of protection; (3) 
government overreach; (4) majority of sites are already protected from 
oil and gas development by the existing BOEM's No Activity Zones; and 
(5) proposed expansion areas are not nationally significant or unique.
    Response: Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 
NOAA has established a strong purpose and need to expand FGBNMS (See 
FEIS Chapter 2). Through the management plan review and scoping 
process, NOAA identified several gaps in management of reefs and banks 
near the current sanctuary where habitats were experiencing damage from 
anchoring

[[Page 4943]]

and fishing gear in addition to potential for further industrial 
development. NOAA determined that extending sanctuary management to 
these areas would assist in addressing these gaps in protections by 
supplementing and complementing existing authorities established by 
BOEM and the GMFMC. While BOEM-designated NAZ's protect from oil and 
gas development, without sanctuary management efforts, habitats would 
remain vulnerable to anchor damage, detrimental fishing impacts, and 
other threats.
    NOAA disagrees with the comment that the expansion demonstrates 
government overreach. The NMSA provides NOAA with the authority to 
designate, as marine sanctuaries, areas of the marine environment, 
which are of special national significance that possess conservation, 
ecological, and scientific qualities. Through decades of scientific 
research and exploration, NOAA has determined that the sanctuary 
expansion areas contain some of the highest reported densities of 
corals in the U.S. and other unique deepwater habitats that are not 
found elsewhere in the world, making them nationally significant and 
worthwhile to protect.

Sanctuary Regulations and Enforcement

    12. Comment: NOAA received comments requesting changes to existing 
regulations including: (1) Allow anchoring for fishing; (2) a 
reasonable range of alternative management actions; (3) allow 
spearfishing; and (4) an exemption for pelagic longline fishing.
    Response: NOAA rejected these requests because it was determined 
that granting them would negate the overall effectiveness of the 
existing regulations in the expansion areas. Current sanctuary 
regulations will address gaps in protection of the expansion areas. In 
the NPRM for sanctuary expansion, NOAA requested public comments on two 
fishery exemption requests: to allow pelagic longlining and 
spearfishing. NOAA received very limited support for exempting these 
activities (see fishing section below) and has determined that 
extension of existing fishing regulations to the expansion area is 
appropriate. Refer to FEIS Chapter 3, Section 3.1.2 for alternatives 
considered but rejected.
    13. Comment: NOAA received comments that suggested the agency 
should provide enforcement policies to enhance the effectiveness of 
sanctuary expansion.
    Response: The FGBNMS management plan details the enforcement policy 
for the expansion areas. NOAA will continue to work with Federal and 
state enforcement partners to maintain water and aerial surveillance, 
update patrol guides and regulatory handbooks, and conduct 
interpretive/outreach patrols within all of FGBNMS.

Air Quality and Climate Change

    14. Comment: NOAA received comments requesting that NOAA evaluate 
how the sanctuary expansion would affect the climate (i.e., potential 
impacts to greenhouse gas emissions within sanctuary expansion areas).
    Response: NOAA agrees with the need to evaluate the impacts of 
sanctuary expansion on the climate and has provided analysis of the 
potential beneficial effects of the expansion on physical and 
biological resources, including beneficial impacts derived from 
prohibiting harmful activities. NOAA also estimates that this action 
will help offset impacts of climate change (see FEIS Chapter 5, Section 
5.3.1).
    15. Comment: NOAA received comments requesting an assessment of how 
climate change affects FGBNMS, how it will affect proposed additions, 
and methods to reduce greenhouse gases with sanctuary expansion areas. 
One comment also requested a program-wide evaluation of climate 
adaption management gaps and needs.
    Response: The management plan for FGBNMS contains Conservation 
Science Action Plans, which include goals to increase knowledge and 
understanding of the sanctuary's ecosystem, develop new and continue 
ongoing research and monitoring programs to identify and address 
specific resource management issues, and encourage information 
exchange, and cooperation. FGBNMS participated in development of the 
Ocean Acidification Action Plan \8\ for national marine sanctuaries. 
The plan has numerous research recommendations for studying ocean 
acidification, a common consequence expected of future climate change. 
Please also visit NOAA's website \9\ for program-wide climate change 
initiatives, data, observations, and outreach materials. ONMS is 
standing up a Focus Group on climate, with the goal to develop the ONMS 
Climate Strategic Plan. FGBNMS is an active participant in this 
initiative, and the sanctuary, including the expansion areas, will be 
integrated into the overall plan. Ocean Acidification, specifically, 
has been integrated into FGBNMS long-term monitoring programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ https://oceanacidification.noaa.gov/Home.aspx.
    \9\ https://www.noaa.gov/climate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    16. Comment: NOAA received recommendations that the agency use 
newer emissions inventory for the analysis on air monitoring and 
pollutants.
    Response: NOAA used the best available data for their environmental 
analysis of air emissions and pollutants when developing the FEIS. 
Please refer to FEIS Chapter 4, Section 4.2.1 for detailed information 
about the data and resources used for air quality and climate change.
    17. Comment: NOAA received a comment that suggested the No Action 
Alternative (Alternative 1) does contribute to climate change over time 
as it does not prevent climate change from progressing, and requested 
the agency amend the analysis in DEIS Section 5.3.1.
    Response: Since implementation of the No Action Alternative is 
expected to leave the existing environment unchanged except for 
continuation of existing impacts, including on-going impacts of climate 
change, the effect of this alternative is the same as described in 
Chapter 4. The ``No Action'' Alternative served as a baseline for the 
impact analysis to compare all other alternatives. As such, there would 
be no additional change to climate expected under this alternative. The 
text has been slightly amended in FEIS Chapter 5, Section 5.2 to offer 
clarification in response to this comment.

Biological Resources

    18. Comment: NOAA received comments related to biological resource 
concerns. Biological comments focused on how sanctuary expansion would 
protect resources against damages (e.g., anchoring, invasive species), 
the benefits sanctuary protection would provide (e.g., improvements in 
fish stocks and productivity, preservation of biodiversity, continued 
discovery of new species), and requests for protection of specific 
species/groups (e.g., Mobula rays, sea turtles, sharks, coral).
    Response: NOAA concurs with the importance of protecting vulnerable 
biological resources and believes that this action helps to address 
many of the remaining gaps that threaten biological resources in the 
expanded sanctuary. With this action, NOAA is prohibiting the following 
activities in the sanctuary: Anchoring; drilling into, dredging, or 
altering the seabed; discharging or depositing of material; any injury 
to coral, rays, or whale sharks; fishing except for with conventional 
hook and line gear; and take of marine mammals and turtles except when 
permitted under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) and Endangered 
Species Act (ESA). Collectively, these

[[Page 4944]]

prohibitions will help to protect fishes from unsustainable harvest by 
limiting fishing; help to maintain biodiversity of benthic habitats by 
protecting the seafloor; and allow further protection of many 
vulnerable living marine resources including rays, sea turtles and 
other ESA and MMPA-listed species. Please also refer to FEIS Chapter 5, 
Section 5.3.6 and 5.3.8 for additional details regarding impacts of 
sanctuary expansion to biological resources.
    19. Comment: NOAA received comments requesting the sanctuary 
protect resources from negative impacts of fishing. Commenters noted 
the vulnerability of the expansion area to fishing injury, and urged 
protection of fish species in order to achieve fishing sustainability. 
Requests for fishery management included: (1) Limiting fishing 
locations; (2) prohibiting bottom-dragging gear; and (3) continuing to 
limit fishing to hook and line only. Some of the comments received in 
support of expansion were from members of the fishing sector.
    Response: NOAA intends to extend the current sanctuary regulations 
to the proposed expansion areas, which includes restricting fishing 
activities to conventional hook and line techniques only (i.e., any 
fishing apparatus operated aboard a vessel and composed of a single 
line terminated by a combination of sinkers and hooks or lures and 
spooled upon a reel that may be hand- or electrically-operated, hand-
held or mounted). NOAA prohibits the use of any bottom tending fishing 
gear to protect delicate corals and important benthic habitat from 
fishing impacts, which will continue in the expansion areas. A detailed 
list of the current regulations can be reviewed in Table 1.1, Chapter 
1, Section 1.4.
    20. Comment: NOAA received a comment requesting projections of 
ecosystem services (i.e., estimates for the increase in value of 
managing protected species and habitats such as hard and soft corals, 
fish, and mesophotic reefs) be included in the final analysis.
    Response: Analysis of ecosystem services is beyond the scope of the 
environmental analysis necessary for this action, and thus, NOAA 
rejects this request. Instead, NOAA provided an economic analysis in 
the FEIS that estimated a passive economic value (i.e. non-use value) 
of the sanctuary expansion. For details on the economic analysis, 
please refer to Chapter 4, Section 4.4.7 of the FEIS or the peer-
reviewed publication that resulted from this study, Stefanski and 
Shimshack (2016).
    21. Comment: NOAA received a comment which indicated that the BEWG 
was informed that higher coral counts had been observed outside of the 
NAZs, than inside NAZs, and requested an explanation for why this was 
not considered during the boundary configuration of the Revised 
Preferred Alternative.
    Response: Additional areas containing higher coral colony counts 
were quantified during remotely operated vehicle (ROV) surveys, and the 
data was considered during the National Centers for Coastal Ocean 
Sciences (NCCOS) collaboration with the FGBNMS Advisory Council's BEWG. 
The BEWG selected smaller boundaries, which closely follow the NAZs, 
primarily to reduce impacts to the oil and gas industry and to retain 
access for historical fishing practices. Outside of the expansion 
process, NOAA will provide the processed data and associated 
publication to both BOEM and NMFS, for consideration during review of 
regulations, and for future oil and gas, and fishing activities. While 
this will not provide blanket protection measures, it will be valuable 
in protections from potential major impacts.
    22. Comment: NOAA received comments requesting an analysis of the 
impacts sustained to the environment from run-off of toxic and 
hazardous elements, sewage, pollution, and potential expansion of the 
Gulf of Mexico hypoxic zone, or `dead zone', into the proposed 
sanctuary expansion areas.
    Response: NOAA used the best available data to evaluate the 
environmental impacts to the expansion areas as required under NEPA and 
the Council of Environmental Quality's (CEQ's) 1978 NEPA regulations. 
NOAA, however, is studying these issues and plans to continue analyzing 
the impacts in its next management plan review process.
    23. Comment: NOAA received comments regarding disturbances (vessel 
traffic) related to the noise environment, including a request to 
quantify the additional impact from an increased number of boaters.
    Response: NOAA continues to study the issue of noise impacts on 
sanctuary resources. Sanctuary regulations prohibit the disturbance of 
marine mammals and turtles except when permitted under the MMPA and 
ESA. With respect to sonar testing, Section 304(d) of the NMSA provides 
for consultation with other federal agencies if their actions have the 
likelihood to injure sanctuary resources. NOAA has previously used this 
mechanism in consultations to minimize impacts of noise on marine 
mammals and other species. FGBNMS is actively engaged in a vessel 
traffic and noise assessment and monitoring program within the 
sanctuary, which will be expanded to the new areas.
    Please refer to FEIS Chapter 4, Section 4.2.2 for detailed 
information about the noise environment in the current FGBNMS, as well 
as expansion areas. Additionally, refer to FEIS Chapter 5, Section 
5.3.2 for NOAA's analysis of environmental consequences to marine 
resources with respect to noise disturbances.
    24. Comment: NOAA received comments requesting protection for fish 
spawning aggregations with the expansion.
    Response: NOAA concurs with commenters and believes the expansion 
of the sanctuary will assist in the protection of fish spawning 
aggregations in the northwestern Gulf of Mexico. With this action, NOAA 
will extend sanctuary regulations to the expansion areas which limit 
fishing activities to conventional hook and line techniques, prohibit 
bottom tending gear, and restrict the use of anchors within sanctuary 
boundaries. This action will thereby complement protections for fish 
spawning habitats provided under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 
Conservation and Management Act (MSA). Fish spawning aggregations have 
been observed and recorded during ROV explorations at reefs and banks 
included in the expansion areas. Therefore, NOAA determined that 
sanctuary designation will directly protect habitat where the 
aggregations occur. NOAA intends to consider further protection of 
spawning aggregations during the next management plan review.
    25. Comment: NOAA received a comment requesting NOAA consider 
designating areas within the sanctuary as ``no take'' marine reserves.
    Response: NOAA considered this request and does not intend to 
designate any ``no-take'' marine reserves within the sanctuary through 
this action. With this action, NOAA extends the current fishing 
regulations to the expansion areas which limit fishing activities to 
conventional hook and line techniques and exclude any bottom tending 
gear. Anchoring will also be prohibited in the expanded sanctuary, and 
mooring buoys will be installed so that fishers and vessels (<100 feet 
long) can safely moor within the sanctuary boundaries.
    To evaluate the impact of conventional hook and line fishing to 
managed fish species in the sanctuary, NOAA conducted an environmental 
impact analysis on living marine

[[Page 4945]]

resources, including fish in relation to the different expansion 
alternatives (see FEIS Chapter 5, Section 5.36). Overall, NOAA 
determined none of these resources would sustain any significant 
adverse impacts with sanctuary designation. However, NOAA determined 
that this action will provide benefit to fish, given the added 
protection to critical habitat and restrictions to fishing techniques. 
Mesophotic and deep water reefs have been shown to have low resilience 
and slow recovery potential, and harbor greater fish biomass than their 
shallower counterparts, underlining the importance of their protection 
(Lindfield et al. 2016, Huvenne et al. 2016). By reducing fishing 
pressure through sanctuary protection, fish size, biomass, and 
abundance could increase, while also enhancing coral reef resiliency 
(Reed 2002, 2007, Bozec et al. 2016, Chirico et al. 2017). Impacts to 
the resources may be reduced due to limitations on fishing that can 
otherwise alter predator-prey relationships, disturb bottom habitats, 
and increase loss of fish biomass. The added prohibition of 
spearfishing further protects fish from direct extraction (Lindfield et 
al. 2014).
    Sanctuary management actions could reduce marine debris and impacts 
of debris on corals and other organisms, such as entanglement in 
derelict fishing gear and incidental catch of fish in ``ghost'' fishing 
gears. Moreover, extending to the expansion areas the prohibition of 
bottom-tending fishing gear, limits on anchoring and the discharge of 
pollutants, removal of marine debris such as derelict fishing gear, and 
invasive species removal, would all improve habitat for benthic coral 
communities and fish communities.
    Designating areas as a ``no take'' marine reserve is an important 
issue and NOAA plans to consider it in the next review of the FGBNMS 
management plan.
    26. Comment: NOAA received a comment requesting that a Gulf Sperm 
Whale/Pelagic Ecosystem national marine sanctuary be established.
    Response: NOAA does not intend to establish a Gulf Sperm Whale/
Pelagic Ecosystem National Marine Sanctuary. The request is beyond the 
scope of this proposed action.

Visual Resources

    27. Comment: NOAA received a comment on DEIS Section 5.3.2.3--
Scenic and Visual Resources requesting that negative impacts to scenic 
and visual resources that could occur because of an increased number of 
boaters and/or increased use of fishing line be considered in the 
analysis.
    Response: NOAA evaluated both beneficial and adverse impacts to 
each resource area and determined there would be no adverse impacts to 
scenic and visual resources. NOAA predicts beneficial impacts on the 
scenic and visual resources of the proposed expansion areas by reducing 
marine debris including derelict fishing gear, vessel traffic, and 
industrial infrastructure. Refer to FEIS Chapter 5, Section 5.3.3.

Fishing, Fishery Regulations, and Fishery Management

    28. Comment: NOAA received a comment that requested the agency to 
analyze recreational fishing activities in the proposed expansion 
areas.
    Response: NOAA addressed the request for this analysis by 
evaluating the level of recreational fishing activity expected to occur 
in the proposed expansion areas, using the best available data, to 
capture the socioeconomic impact to this industry. Ultimately, NOAA 
determined that there would be no significant adverse impacts to 
recreational fishers. For analysis of recreational fishing activities, 
please refer to FEIS Chapter 4, Section 4.4.1.2 for a description of 
the data used and Chapter 5, Section 5.3.9.2 for the expected 
environmental impact.
    29. Comment: NOAA received a comment that requested the agency 
clarify benefits of the expansion to commercial fishers and improve the 
socioeconomic analysis of commercial fishers.
    Response: NOAA updated FEIS Chapter 4, Section 4.4.1 to supplement 
the analysis on commercial fisheries with additional and current VMS 
data to assess socioeconomic impacts imposed by the expansion on 
commercial (Section 4.4.1.1) and recreational (Section 4.4.1.2) 
fishers. Overall, NOAA determined that no significant adverse impacts 
to fishers would result from the proposed expansion (See Chapter 5, 
Section 5.3.9.1 and 5.3.9.2). NOAA concluded minor benefits to 
commercial fishers may occur with the expansion of the sanctuary (see 
Chapter 5, Section 5.3.9.1) as fish production may increase in general 
with the decreased fishing pressure and habitat protections of specific 
locations.
    Broadly, it is well documented by the scientific community that 
coral reef and mesophotic coral communities provide necessary habitat 
for a significant number of fish species, and the prevention of loss of 
these habitats will help to maintain and enhance fish populations 
dependent on these areas. More specifically, higher biomass and 
abundance of fish are often associated with greater habitat coverage 
and/or complexity, such that, protecting habitat has an increased 
likelihood to improve fish stocks (Jones et al. 2004, Coker et al. 
2014, Lindfield et al. 2016, Komyakova et al. 2018, Carminatto et al. 
2020, Russ et al. 2020). Additionally, reducing fishing pressure could 
lead to an increased monetary value of commercial fisheries, partly due 
to the presence of larger individuals (thus more valuable) and higher 
densities of high-value species (Chirico et al. 2017). Mesophotic reefs 
have been found to harbor greater biomass of fishery-targeted species 
than shallower reefs, suggesting these habitats are important to 
protect for the longevity of commercial harvests (Lindfield et al. 
2016). In essence, sanctuary expansion is protecting critical habitat 
which may result in increased fish biomass (Edgar et al. 2011, Harborne 
et al. 2008) or abundance (Jeffrey et al. 2012), particularly where 
fishing pressure is reduced (Edgar et al. 2011, Kramer and Heck 2007), 
which could benefit commercial fishers.
    30. Comment: NOAA received comments regarding spearfishing, with 
the majority requesting a prohibition on this activity. Some commenters 
offered conditional support of spearfishing, suggesting allowing the 
activity: (1) In a limited capacity with access at a limited number of 
banks and reefs in the expansion area; (2) only for the removal of 
lionfish, an invasive species present in the current and proposed 
sanctuary areas; or (3) by breath hold only.
    Response: NOAA intends to extend the current sanctuary regulations 
to the expansion areas proposed in the Final Preferred Alternative. As 
such, NOAA will not be implementing any additional fishing regulations 
as part of the final rulemaking. NOAA prohibits spearfishing in the 
current boundary to protect delicate corals, including threatened 
species, and important benthic habitat from fishing impacts, which will 
continue in the expansion areas. Spearfishing for lionfish is not a 
permissible activity within sanctuary borders. However, spearfishing 
with pole spears has been performed opportunistically by research staff 
through permitted long-term monitoring activities at FGBNMS. 
Additionally, lionfish invitational research cruises have been a 
permitted activity since 2015 at FGBNMS to remove the invasive species 
with highly skilled, qualified recreational divers and contribute to a 
variety of research projects with external academic and agency 
partners. NOAA intends to continue to permit

[[Page 4946]]

lionfish removals, with restrictions and obligations to properly train 
divers in effective removal techniques that prioritize coral and 
ecosystem health. A detailed description of sanctuary regulations is 
described in FEIS Table 1.1, Chapter 1, Section 1.4.
    31. Comment: NOAA received a comment that suggested the 
spearfishing community has been excluded from access to the sanctuary.
    Response: NOAA solicited public comment to exempt spearfishing in 
the proposed sanctuary boundary with the release of the NPRM. In 
response, NOAA received overwhelming support to continue prohibition of 
this activity. Please see additional information provided in comment 
#30. This will restrict access to the sanctuary expansion areas for the 
spearfishing community.
    32. Comment: In response to the DEIS, NOAA received a request 
seeking a pelagic longline exemption from the otherwise applicable 
sanctuary fishing prohibitions proposed for the expansion areas. NOAA 
also received a few similar comments in response to the NPRM. However, 
there were also a significant number of NPRM commenters that opposed 
this exemption.
    Response: NOAA considered the request made during the public review 
of the DEIS for a pelagic longline exemption to the proposed fishing 
prohibitions in the expansion area. In response, NOAA solicited public 
comments pertaining to pelagic longline fishing in the NPRM. Based on 
strong public support to prohibit this activity, NOAA has rejected the 
request for an exemption for pelagic longlining and, instead, intends 
to extend the current sanctuary regulations to the expansion areas. 
Under existing regulations, fishing will only be allowed with 
conventional hook and line gear (i.e., any fishing apparatus operated 
aboard a vessel and composed of a single line terminated by a 
combination of sinkers and hooks or lures and spooled upon a reel that 
may be hand- or electrically operated, hand-held or mounted). NOAA 
believes the expansion of FGBNMS to additional reefs and banks in the 
northwestern Gulf of Mexico will add critical protection for fish, 
marine mammals, threatened and endangered species, as well as their 
habitat. NOAA determined the existing regulations would best accomplish 
this protection and fulfill the NMSA obligation to protect nationally 
significant environmental features.
    A detailed description of sanctuary regulations is described in the 
FEIS Table 1.1, Chapter 1, Section 1.4. NOAA has been in consultation 
with NMFS and GMFMC throughout the entire scoping process of sanctuary 
expansion, please refer to FEIS Chapter 1, Section 1.5.4.2, for 
additional details on these consultations.
    33. Comment: NOAA received a comment requesting its fisheries 
analysis in the DEIS include more types of fishing gear and data to 
determine what areas were used by fishers and the value of these areas 
to those fisheries.
    Response: NOAA provided a detailed list of the types of commercial 
vessel and recreation vessels that operate within the proposed 
sanctuary boundaries in the DEIS. NOAA has added a new table to the 
FEIS to include gear types used by commercial fishers that were 
observed in the vicinity of the Final Preferred Alternative. Please 
review Section 5.3.9.1 and 5.3.9.2 for a description of the commercial 
and recreational fishing vessels that operate within the proposed 
sanctuary boundaries based on permit or gear type. This analysis 
estimates the number of vessels within the vicinity of the boundaries 
under each alternative.
    34. Comment: NOAA received a comment requesting an analysis of the 
potential impact(s) of weights used in bandit reel gear configurations 
on the benthic habitat and corals, as well as more information on the 
types of gear used in this type of fishing configuration.
    Response: FGBNMS intends to continue investigating impacts of 
recreational and commercial fishing in the sanctuary, including bandit 
reel gear, and will address this in more detail during the next 
management plan review.
    35. Comment: NOAA received a comment requesting a comprehensive 
commercial endorsement and certification program be developed to allow 
commercial fishers to continue to operate within the proposed 
boundaries. Additionally, there was a request to create an exemption 
for shrimpers in the Royal Red Shrimp industry to continue their 
historical practices.
    Response: NOAA has considered this request, and following 
consultation with GMFMC pursuant to NMSA section 304(a)(5), decided not 
to establish a commercial endorsement and certification program or 
provide an exemption for shrimpers or other fishers in the sanctuary, 
based on the reduction in size of the new areas. Facilitating 
commercial fishing in the sanctuary, even through an endorsement and 
certification process, could make corals and other sensitive bottom 
habitats vulnerable to injury. NOAA believes that the reduction in 
boundaries between the 2016 original preferred alternative and the 
Final Preferred Alternative, in addition to allowing conventional hook 
and line fishing in the expanded sanctuary, facilitates an appropriate 
balance between environmental protection and user access dictated as 
mandated by the NMSA. A detailed description of sanctuary regulations 
is described in FEIS Table 1.1, Chapter 1, Section 1.4. FEIS Chapter 1, 
Section 1.5.2 provides additional details on this consultation.
    36. Comment: NOAA received a comment that suggested specific 
language be added for the discharge of natural waste of farmed fish 
related to open gulf mariculture, stating that fish farming operations 
outside of sanctuary boundaries may discharge sinking organic material 
that deposit within the sanctuary with prevailing currents.
    Response: NOAA determined this request is outside the scope of this 
action. While sanctuary regulations do not specifically prohibit 
aquaculture, some associated activities are prohibited such as 
discharge of certain material, alteration of the seabed, and injury to 
sanctuary resources. Furthermore, the suitability of the area for 
aquaculture is being separately considered under other authorities 
including E.O. 13921, (October 23, 2020; 85 FR 67519). FGBNMS will 
further consider aquaculture and its potential impacts during the next 
management plan review.

Military Uses

    37. Comment: A comment related to the Department of the Navy's 
activities within the proposed sanctuary areas suggested to: (1) 
Include in the FEIS, Department of Defense (DoD) use of water space in 
the vicinity of proposed expansion and current sanctuary; (2) provide a 
map of the Gulf of Mexico warning areas for military use; (3) add 
military uses to marine-use categories; and (4) add an analysis of the 
potential impact to military uses.
    Response: Homeland security and military uses of the expanded 
sanctuary are subject to compliance with NEPA and NMSA, in addition to 
all applicable environmental regulations. DoD would be required to 
consult with ONMS pursuant to NMSA section 304(d) on any new military 
activities in the expansion area that are likely to injure sanctuary 
resources. NOAA believes the existing regulatory framework sufficiently 
addresses DoD impacts on sanctuary resources. Existing military uses 
and an analysis of their environmental effects in the expansion area 
have been added to Chapter 4, Section 4.4.5 and Chapter 5, Section 
5.3.9.7 of the FEIS.

[[Page 4947]]

NEPA Process

    38. Comment: NOAA received comments regarding the NEPA process. 
Commenters requested NOAA conduct a new NEPA analysis because of: (1) 
The difference in methodologies used to configure the Final Preferred 
Alternative and Alternative 3 in the DEIS; and (2) new circumstances 
and/or information available (e.g., fishing exemptions, removal of 
buffer zones).
    Response: NOAA evaluated the changes made from the 2016 original 
preferred alternative (Alternative 3) to the Final Preferred 
Alternative presented in the NPRM and this FEIS. The Final Preferred 
Alternative revised Alternative 3 boundaries to be more tightly drawn 
near the shallowest portions of the geological features of interest, 
largely in response to existing fishing activity and oil and gas 
activity (see response to comment #3). The new polygons included all of 
the same reefs and banks, excluding Bryant Bank, which is not included 
in the Final Preferred Alternative. Ultimately, NOAA determined that 
the changes reflected in the Final Preferred Alternative were not 
``substantial changes in the proposed action that are relevant to 
environmental concerns'' (40 CFR 1502.9(c)(1)(i)). NOAA further 
determined the comments received on the 2016 DEIS did not ``constitute 
significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental 
concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its impacts'' (40 CFR 
1502.9(c)(1)(ii)). As such, NOAA concluded that preparing a 
supplemental environmental impact statement or new NEPA analysis is 
neither required nor necessary under NEPA. NOAA has documented the 
agency's rationale for revising the Final Preferred Alternative (see 
Chapter 3, Section 3.2) and provided updated information on the 
affected environment in FEIS Chapter 5, Section 5.3, and related Record 
of Decision. Please refer to NOAA's Supplemental Information Report 
that was provided with the release of the NPRM for further information.
    39. Comment: NOAA received a comment that requested that the 
Protected Species analysis in Section 5.3.2.7 of the DEIS be public and 
open for review/comment.
    Response: ONMS conducted an ESA Section 7 consultation with NMFS in 
conjunction with the development of both the DEIS and NPRM. In the 
DEIS, ONMS included a list of protected species which may be affected 
by the proposed action, and the DEIS was subsequently submitted for 
public comment. Additional species were included in the NPRM 
consultation. See FEIS Chapter 4, Section 4.3.4 for additional 
information on protected species with an updated list of protected 
species and Appendix G for a summary of how ONMS satisfied ESA 
consultation requirements including ONMS's ESA consultation 
correspondence.
    40. Comment: NOAA received a comment stating that the Notices to 
Lessees are not simply guidance because they contain requirements for 
oil and gas.
    Response: NOAA disagrees. Please refer to the Bureau of Safety and 
Environmental Enforcement Notice to Lessees 2009-G39,\10\ which 
provides and consolidates guidance for oil and gas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ https://www.bsee.gov/notices-to-lessees-ntl/notices-to-lessees/ntl-2009-g39-biologically-sensitive-underwater-features.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

National Marine Sanctuaries Act

    41. Comment: NOAA received comments that suggested the expansion of 
sanctuaries must be conducted through an act of Congress, otherwise it 
violates Congressional intent found in the NMSA.
    Response: NOAA disagrees. NOAA can administratively designate and 
expand sanctuaries pursuant to Section 303 of the NMSA (16 U.S.C. 
1433), using procedures set forth in section 304 (16 U.S.C. 1434). It 
is also possible for Congress to legislatively designate a sanctuary; 
Stetson Bank (Pub. L. 104-283) in the current FGBNMS serves as an 
example of a legislatively designated sanctuary.
    42. Comment: NOAA received comments stating the NPRM did not comply 
with the NMSA and the FGBNMS 2012 management plan to prioritize 
conservation of surrounding reefs and banks.
    Response: The proposed action responds to the need to provide 
additional protection of sensitive underwater features and marine 
habitats associated with continental shelf-edge reefs and banks in the 
northwestern Gulf of Mexico. NOAA adds 14 additional reefs and banks, 
for a total of 17 features to be protected, expanding the sanctuary by 
approximately three times its current spatial extent. In addition to 
prioritizing the conservation of nationally significant biological 
features, the NMSA section 301 (16 U.S.C. 1431) directs NOAA to 
facilitate, to the extent compatible with the primary objective of 
resource protection, all public and private uses of the resources of 
these marine areas not prohibited pursuant to other authorities. Thus, 
compliant with the NMSA, NOAA believes the current expansion in this 
FEIS and final rule, as proposed in the NPRM, maximizes conservation 
and user group interests to allow for greater protection of these 
areas.

Oil & Gas Exploration and Development

    43. Comment: NOAA received comments from the oil and gas industry 
in response to the 2016 DEIS alternatives regarding recognition and 
inclusion of existing oil and gas leases. Commenters expressed concern 
that sanctuary expansion could be more costly or difficult for oil and 
gas production, new leases would be precluded, and the loss of oil and 
gas exploration may lead to reliance on foreign oil. Industry 
representatives noted their reliance on the 2007 Sanctuary Advisory 
Council recommendation for expansion (Alternative 2) to inform their 
investment in resources for the industry's development and growth, or 
their decision to relinquish certain lease blocks. Industry 
representatives requested oil and gas access, leasing, produced water 
discharge requirements, and seismic acquisition should remain as is, 
with no additional regulations.
    Response: To address concerns from the oil and gas industry, the 
FGBNMS Sanctuary Advisory Council's BEWG underwent an extensive process 
to evaluate how protecting biologically significant areas may impact 
the oil and gas industry. They proposed modifying DEIS Alternative 3 to 
develop the Revised Preferred Alternative (see comment #3). This 
process also involved input from the Sanctuary Advisory Council, the 
GMFMC, and coordination within NOAA. The new boundaries closely follow 
BOEM's NAZs, encompassing the shallowest portions of the banks, which 
are already protected from oil and gas exploration and development. 
Furthermore, ONMS consulted with BOEM pursuant to E.O. 13795--
Implementing an America-First Offshore Energy Strategy and determined 
that expanding the sanctuary would not have a significant economic 
impact on oil and gas exploration and development. BOEM's analysis is 
summarized in the NPRM and in FEIS Chapter 5, Section 5.3.9.5.
    44. Comment: NOAA received a comment requesting an analysis of the 
inclusion of four oil and gas platforms within the expansion areas for 
advantages and disadvantages, especially in the context of Sanctuary 
Expansion Action Plan Objective 6C.
    Response: NOAA's Final Preferred Alternative does not include any

[[Page 4948]]

additional oil and gas platforms within the existing or expanded 
sanctuary boundaries, thus, the requested analysis is not necessary. 
NOAA did, however, consider inclusion of certain oil and gas platforms 
as part of the alternatives considered in the NEPA analysis for this 
action. See Alternatives 4 and 5 of this FEIS. Please also refer to 
FEIS Chapter 5, Section 5.3.9.5 for analysis of impacts to offshore 
energy resources. Finally, NOAA intends to continue analyzing the 
advantages and disadvantages of oil and gas structure inclusion within 
FGBNMS as part of its ongoing management plan review process.
    45. Comment: NOAA received a comment that requested an economic 
analysis of: (1) Impacts to oil and gas resources due to directional 
drilling; (2) affected lease blocks; and (3) a comparison in area 
between NAZs and proposed sanctuary expansion areas. There was also a 
request to identify any future management actions/mitigations which may 
affect oil and gas activities.
    Response: BOEM analyzed potential impacts to oil and gas resources 
pursuant to E.O. 13795, and these results are available on the 
sanctuary website.\11\ BOEM determined that expanding the sanctuary 
would not have significant economic impacts on the oil and gas 
industry, and NOAA accepted BOEM's findings. NOAA will continue to 
coordinate with BOEM to co-manage these resources and mitigate any 
impacts to oil and gas activities, including the 11 active Outer 
Continental Shelf (OCS) oil and gas leases that will lie wholly or 
partially within the boundaries of the expanded FGBNMS. For new leases, 
approvals or permits, licenses, or other authorizations in existence 
prior to the date in which the FGBNMS expansion is finalized, lessees 
or operators will be required to obtain from NOAA a certification to 
authorize the oil and gas activities within the FGBNMS. The 
certification will require compliance with the FGBNMFS regulations, as 
well as the permits or plan approvals issued by BOEM and/or BSEE, and 
the topographic features stipulation (as applicable) in the lease.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ https://nmsflowergarden.blob.core.windows.net/flowergarden-prod/media/archive/doc/expansion/boemenergyanalysis.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Refer to FEIS Section 5.3.9.5 for additional analysis of the 
impacts to oil and gas activities.
    46. Comment: NOAA received a comment to incorporate BOEM lease 
sales and stipulations into BOEM's Record of Decision and Final Notice 
of Sale.
    Response: As a non-voting member on the Sanctuary Advisory Council, 
and a cooperating agency in the preparation of the 2016 DEIS, BOEM has 
incorporated lease sales and stipulations into BOEM's Record of 
Decision and Final Notice. FEIS Chapter 5, Section 5.3.9.5 shows that 
there were 13 active lease blocks, as reported by BOEM in their 2019 
report. However, since publication of that report, two leases were 
relinquished. There are currently 11 active leases in the expansion 
area, averaging approximately 17% of the lease blocks falling within 
the Final Preferred Alternative boundaries. Lease sales issued between 
1996 and 2001 provided Information for Lessees indicating ``Minimizing 
Oil and Gas Structures near Flower Garden Banks''. Lease sales issued 
between 2002 through 2014 did not specifically mention FGBNMS, but the 
lease sales do refer to the Notice to Lessees outlining the topographic 
and live bottom stipulations. The sanctuary regulations track the 
operational requirements established by BOEM in those stipulations. 
Lease sales issued between 2015 to the present provide notice to 
prospective leaseholders of the proposed expansion. More information 
regarding BOEM lease sales may be found on BOEM's website.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ https://www.boem.gov/oil-gas-energy/lease-sale-information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    47. Comment: NOAA received a comment that requested the agency 
develop an appropriate regulatory ``firewall'' that will set a 
precedent for other sanctuaries to protect those areas from offshore 
drilling practices.
    Response: NOAA believes this request is beyond the scope of this 
action but will continue to work toward balancing multiple user 
interests with the NMSA's primary goal of resource protection.
    48. Comment: NOAA received comments related to environmental 
impacts of the oil and gas industry. Of these, nearly half requested 
the sanctuary update the regulations to prohibit oil and gas 
development and to ensure management protects against damages from this 
industry. Concerns raised included: (1) Oil spills and leaks; (2) 
extraction practices; (3) encroaching drilling and exploration; and (4) 
the vulnerability of biological resources to oil and gas activities. 
Comments also requested that NOAA prohibit fracking and analyze the 
potential for fracking fluids and directional hydraulic fracturing to 
impact the area in and near the sanctuary. A few comments related 
specifically to methane hydrate extraction.
    Response: NOAA determined the Final Preferred Alternative balances 
protecting vulnerable habitats with multiple uses of the region. See 
FEIS Chapter 3, Section 3.2 for more details regarding the Final 
Preferred Alternative. NOAA intends to extend the current FGBNMS 
regulations to the new expansion areas. Please refer to FEIS Table 1.1 
in Chapter 1, Section 1.4 for a list of current sanctuary regulations 
and management efforts from impacts of oil and gas activities. 
Additionally, sanctuary regulations prohibit discharge of any kind from 
oil and gas activities that may be harmful to the benthic environment.
    BOEM assessed the potential for offshore energy resources including 
oil and gas and methane hydrate resources in the proposed expansion 
areas. BOEM determined that due to the shallow-water depth of the 
proposed expansion areas, the formation of methane hydrate in the 
subsurface is unlikely. BOEM's E.O. 13795 report is available on the 
sanctuary website.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ https://nmsflowergarden.blob.core.windows.net/flowergarden-prod/media/archive/doc/expansion/boemenergyanalysis.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FEIS describes damages related to oil and gas activities 
observed at banks proposed in the expansion, as well as potential 
impacts that could be sustained to these resources. Please review 
Chapter 4, Section 4.4.3 of the FEIS for additional information.
    Furthermore, in 2016, the NOAA Office of Response and Restoration 
Gulf of Mexico Disaster Response Center convened with the Department of 
Interior and a variety of environmental, regulatory, and resource 
protection agencies to develop a document outlining ``Oil Spill 
Response Options for FGBNMS.'' This document may be found at the 
University of New Hampshire, Coastal Response Research Center and the 
Center for Spills and Environmental Hazards website.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ https://crrc.unh.edu/sites/crrc.unh.edu/files/nrpt_oil_spill_response_impacting_fgbnms_tx_report.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    49. Comment: NOAA received comments related to the prohibition of 
oil and gas development. Specifically, NOAA was requested to prohibit: 
(1) New oil and gas directional drilling, infrastructure, and 
transport; (2) oil and gas leasing within new boundary areas; and (3) 
directional drilling under new boundary areas.
    Response: With this action, NOAA intends to extend existing 
sanctuary prohibitions, which allow and regulate oil and gas 
exploration and development to the expansion areas. Directional 
drilling permits for oil and gas will continue to be considered for 
surface operations in the expansion

[[Page 4949]]

areas, given existing prohibitions, outside of the BOEM-designated No 
Activity Zones. Pursuant to NMSA Section 301(b)(6), NOAA will continue 
``to facilitate to the extent compatible with the primary objective of 
resource protection, all public and private uses of the resources of 
these marine areas not prohibited pursuant to other authorities''. 
Please also refer to comment #49 and FEIS Table 1.1, Section 1.4 for 
current sanctuary regulations.
    50. Comment: NOAA received comments from oil and gas industry 
companies in support of this expansion that recognized the balance 
between conservation, extraction, and user groups achieved through the 
Sanctuary Advisory Council's process in developing the Revised 
Preferred Alternative (NOAA's Final Preferred Alternative).
    Response: NOAA has carried forward the 2018 BEWG's recommendation, 
which is now NOAA's Final Preferred Alternative. Please refer above to 
the Boundaries section and to FEIS Chapter 3, Sections 3.1 and 3.2 for 
more information regarding the development of alternatives and 
selection of the Final Preferred Alternative.

Sanctuary Management and Administration, Funding, Education and 
Outreach, and Sanctuary Advisory Council

    51. Comment: NOAA received comments requesting that FGBNMS develop 
a Resilient Habitat Plan, which seeks to enhance habitat resilience to 
uncertain and unpredictable effects of future change, such as climate 
change.
    Response: The current FGBNMS management plan serves as a framework 
for addressing issues facing the sanctuary and lays the foundation for 
protecting, conserving, and enhancing FGBNMS and its regional 
environment in the Gulf of Mexico. Following this expansion, NOAA will 
begin the process to review and update the FGBNMS Management Plan as 
needed. NOAA acknowledges the growing need to integrate resiliency 
plans into their habitat management schemes and are beginning to 
implement sanctuary climate assessment and adaptations plans sitewide. 
As determined during management plan review, FGBNMS will aim to 
integrate adaptation and resiliency strategies into their habitat and 
resource management. Additionally, FGBNMS will begin development of a 
Condition Report describing the current status of sanctuary resources, 
including the expansion areas. As described in the FEIS Executive 
Summary, NOAA will be extending the existing sanctuary management plan 
and regulations to the newly expanded area.
    52. Comment: NOAA received a comment on DEIS Section 5.3.6--
Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources requesting NOAA 
include costs of expansion and evaluate potential impacts to 
conservation and management activities.
    Response: NEPA requires an analysis of the extent to which the 
proposed project's primary and secondary effects would commit 
nonrenewable resources to uses that future generations would be unable 
to reverse (42 U.S.C. 4332(C)(v); 40 CFR 1502.16). See FEIS Chapter 5, 
Section 5.6.4 which describes any impacts, or losses, to resources that 
cannot be recovered or reversed associated with the proposed action or 
alternatives. Alternatives 1-3 and the Final Preferred Alternative are 
within the current operational budget, and NOAA expects field 
operations to continue at current intensity in the expanded sanctuary. 
Also refer to the 2012 FGBNMS Management Plan for additional budgetary 
information.
    53. Comment: NOAA received comments requesting the FEIS to clearly 
describe ``best diving practices'' in Section 5.3.9.4, how they will be 
implemented, how they will protect FGBNMS, and how NOAA will enforce 
their use.
    Response: The existing sanctuary regulations (15 CFR 
922.122(a)(2)(iii)) require 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 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'' (00-2008) for the Gulf of Mexico. This final rule will apply 
that requirement to the expanded areas and must be followed. The FGBNMS 
Trip Prep web page \15\ provides recreational divers with information 
to prepare for their trip to the sanctuary, information about the 
challenging diving conditions that can be experienced at FGBNMS, and 
how to safely prepare for these visits, and includes information on 
best diving and boating practices to ensure the safety of visitors. 
Additionally, the FGBNMS Trip Prep web page includes a link to reef 
etiquette, which provides information about the best diving practices 
to ensure the protection of the environment. A link to this reef 
etiquette web page \16\ has been added to Section 5.3.6. NOAA believes 
when these practices are followed, reefs sustain very minimal, if any, 
damage. While compliance with the sanctuary regulations is mandatory, 
some of the best diving practices set forth on the FGBNMS Trip Prep web 
page are voluntary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ https://flowergarden.noaa.gov/visiting/tripprep.html.
    \16\ https://flowergarden.noaa.gov/visiting/reefetiquette.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FGBNMS also has regulations prohibiting resources from being taken 
from the sanctuary (e.g., shells, coral, invertebrates) and restricting 
harassment of marine wildlife (e.g., Mobula rays, whale sharks). A list 
of the regulations is provided in FEIS Chapter 1, Section 1.4, Table 
1.1. The USCG and NOAA's OLE are jointly responsible for enforcing 
regulations at FGBNMS.
    54. Comment: NOAA received comments regarding sharing its coral and 
habitat information with the GMFMC so the data could be included in the 
coral portal. Also, FGBNMS was asked to collaborate with NOAA's 
National Resource Damage Assessment's (NRDA) Trustee Council's Open 
Ocean Trustee Implementation Group to restore mesophotic and deep 
benthic communities (MDBC).
    Response: NOAA welcomes the opportunity to collaborate with 
organizations to build community partnerships for education, outreach, 
research, monitoring, and resource protection. Before, during, and 
after the release of the DEIS and the NPRM, the FGBNMS Superintendent 
presented information to the GMFMC on the FGBNMS proposed sanctuary 
expansion. Additionally, FGBNMS provides benthic (e.g., coral) data 
from the current and expanded FGBNMS, as well as other offshore banks 
and reefs in the northwestern Gulf of Mexico to GMFMC for its publicly 
accessible coral portal.\17\ FGBNMS has been intently involved as an 
Active Management Project Partner with NRDA's Mesophotic Deepwater 
Benthic Community's planning projects. Project goals include: (1) 
Enhancing public awareness and performing active management and 
protection activities by undertaking education and outreach targeting 
MDBC resource users and the general public; (2) engaging stakeholders 
and developing socioeconomic analyses to evaluate potential impacts of 
management or protection actions; and (3) directly

[[Page 4950]]

addressing threats to MDBC through management activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ https://portal.gulfcouncil.org/cp/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    55. Comment: NOAA received a comment requesting a Critical Habitat 
Assessment of the banks be included in the proposed expansion as 
required in the International Finance Corporation (IFC) Performance 
Standard 6 (Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Management of 
Living Natural Resources).
    Response: To develop each alternative, NOAA identified nationally 
significant coral habitats that are vulnerable to multiple threats as 
detailed in the FEIS and final rule's Need for Action sections. For 
more detail regarding how specific habitats were selected in the 
alternatives, refer to Chapter 3 of the FEIS. In summary, ONMS 
determined the selected habitats were most in need of protection based 
on the best available scientific information as well as through public 
comment and interagency coordination.
    56. Comment: NOAA received a comment that requested the agency 
incorporate and address management of artificial reefs within sanctuary 
boundaries, specifically decommissioning of oil and gas platforms.
    Response: NOAA's Final Preferred Alternative does not include any 
artificial reef structures. Federal policy on artificial reefs is 
discussed in the FEIS Appendix G and in the 2012 FGBNMS Management 
Plan.
    57. Comment: NOAA received a comment requesting the use of 
collaborative, consensus-building, transparent processes for selection 
and management of sanctuary resources.
    Response: ONMS uses several public, stakeholder-driven processes to 
ensure collaborative, transparent selection and management of 
resources. National marine sanctuaries have sanctuary advisory 
councils, composed of voting and non-voting members that represent a 
variety of government agencies; local user groups; and the general 
public, that advise sanctuary superintendents on priority issues. 
Sanctuary advisory councils may choose to establish committees and 
working groups to further delve into issues; working groups provide an 
opportunity to involve more stakeholders from the community in 
developing recommendations for consideration by the full sanctuary 
advisory councils. Additionally, through NEPA and the federal 
rulemaking processes, ONMS is required to solicit, consider, and 
respond to public comments during each stage in an expansion, 
designation, or regulatory update. All comments received are made 
available and considered by ONMS.
    58. Comment: NOAA received comments requesting the use of British 
Petroleum (BP) restoration funds to justify expansion to Alternatives 4 
and 5. One comment noted specific issues affecting FGBNMS' operational 
capacity to manage alternatives with greater environmental benefit had 
changed (i.e. substantial resources have since been dedicated to 
managing mesophotic and deep benthic communities in the Gulf of Mexico 
through the Deepwater Horizon NRDA).
    Response: FGBNMS is engaged in collaborative efforts with NOAA 
Fisheries through the MDBC project funded through NRDA. NOAA has 
determined, for the purpose of this action, that Alternatives 4 and 5 
are beyond the geographic scope that is feasible for the sanctuary to 
effectively manage (see comment #54 and refer to Chapter 3 of the 
FEIS).
    59. Comment: NOAA received a comment requesting FGBNMS design, 
develop, and commission a research vessel dedicated to studying marine 
mammal population growth in the pelagic environment.
    Response: FGBNMS currently operates the R/V Manta, a research 
vessel that can be used as a platform to research marine mammals, and 
thus rejects this request. NOAA Fisheries conducts marine mammal 
population studies and their Southeast Fisheries Science Center 
develops a report every 5 years. Further, the sanctuary collaborates 
with external organizations and partners to support marine mammal 
research.
    60. Comment: NOAA received a comment requesting the creation of an 
interpretive center in support of the sanctuary.
    Response: NOAA will evaluate opportunities for an interpretive 
center through the next FGBNMS management plan review process.
    61. Comment: NOAA received a comment requesting inclusion of a user 
education and enforcement program to ensure the public is aware of new 
boundaries and requirements.
    Response: Existing online and print materials created for the 
proposed action contain select maps and several photographs. When the 
proposed action becomes final, NOAA will work to update and distribute 
printed and online materials to reflect the features and boundaries of 
FGBNMS.
    62. Comment: NOAA received comments regarding input from the FGBNMS 
Sanctuary Advisory Council and other stakeholders. More specifically, 
commenters asked why the FGBNMS Sanctuary Advisory Council was not 
informed of new information and proposed boundaries for NOAA's original 
preferred alternative in the DEIS (Alternative 3) prior to publication, 
and asked why NOAA selected Alternative 3 instead of the 2007 FGBNMS 
Advisory Council's recommendation (Alternative 2).
    Response: FGBNMS received input from its Sanctuary Advisory Council 
through a Boundary Expansion Working Group comprised of stakeholders 
from varied constituent seats. In 2007, the working group presented its 
recommendation for sanctuary expansion to the full Advisory Council, 
after which the 2007 Sanctuary Advisory Council recommendation 
(Alternative 2) was approved, based on the criteria developed by the 
original BEWG. Their recommendation became the foundation for NOAA's 
original preferred alternative (Alternative 3), which also included 
additional research in the northwestern Gulf of Mexico. After the 
release of the DEIS, a Sanctuary Advisory Council working group 
reformed. Based on the Sanctuary Advisory Council recommendations in 
response to the DEIS, NOAA made a number of changes to the boundaries 
of the polygons surrounding the banks and submerged features. In 2018, 
the BEWG brought forth its recommendation for sanctuary expansion to 
the full Advisory Council, which was approved and became NOAA's Revised 
Preferred Alternative for the NPRM and the Final Preferred Alternative 
in this FEIS.
    NOAA's Final Preferred Alternative represents the collaborative 
efforts between constituent/stakeholder groups and the sanctuary's 
multi-use management. Refer to FEIS Chapter 3, Sections 3.2 and 3.5 
which details development of the Final Preferred Alternative and 
provides the rationale for the selection of Alternative 3 as the 
original preferred alternative in the DEIS, respectively.
    63. Comment: NOAA received a comment suggesting FGBNMS form an 
Advisory Council working group on maritime shipping traffic regarding 
shipping routes.
    Response: NOAA will consider this suggestion in the future.
    64. Comment: NOAA received comments claiming science was 
disregarded during the development of the boundary configuration for 
the Revised Preferred Alternative presented in the NPRM.
    Response: The bank boundaries of the Revised Preferred Alternative 
presented in the NPRM (NOAA's Final Preferred Alternative) closely 
follow BOEM's NAZs, which were based on information

[[Page 4951]]

available in 1970-1980's, and designated to protect active reef 
building benthic communities, associated with the shallowest portions 
of the geographic features. NOAA reduced the size of the expansion 
areas proposed in the 2016 DEIS original preferred alternative to 
minimize user conflicts and potential economic impacts to the offshore 
energy industry in accordance with NMSA section 301 (16 U.S.C. 1431), 
which supports establishing compatible uses with public and private 
resource users.

Socioeconomic Issues and Access

    65. Comment: NOAA received comments stating that the economic 
impact analysis in the DEIS was insufficient and requested updates to 
data pertaining to scuba diving, commercial fishing, air emissions, and 
oil and gas.
    Response: NOAA used the best available scientific information to 
conduct the economic analysis for the DEIS and incorporated updated 
data and analysis, if available, in the FEIS (see Chapter 5). 
Specifically, ONMS updated analyses of impacts to commercial and 
recreational fishing and impacts to oil and gas resources in the FEIS.
    66. Comment: NOAA received comments related to the positive 
socioeconomic impacts resulting from sanctuary expansion on local 
tourism/businesses and the recreation industry. Commenters noted some 
fishing practices were harmful and therefore, fishing restrictions in 
the expansion areas would benefit the recreational fishing industry, 
the commercial fishing industry, and fisheries/seafood production.
    Response: Potential positive and adverse impacts to socioeconomic 
resources (e.g., recreation, fishing) are detailed in FEIS Chapter 5. 
NOAA does not anticipate any significant adverse impacts to be incurred 
on the commercial or recreational fishing industry as a result of this 
expansion. Rather, fishers may find a minor beneficial impact with an 
increase in fish production with the protection of these important 
areas. Please review FEIS Chapter 5, Section 5.3.9.1 and 5.3.9.2 for 
more details on the expected impact to commercial and recreational 
fishing industries, respectively.
    67. Comment: NOAA received comments suggesting that the proposed 
action removes an asset from public use for both commercial and 
recreational purposes, restricts recreational diving access, and 
restricts recreational fishing opportunities. Commenters urged NOAA to 
allow for multiple use of the sanctuary, with reasonable access 
regulations and reasonable mitigation measures that directly address 
threats.
    Response: By expanding the sanctuary's boundaries and extending 
existing regulations to the expansion areas, NOAA is not restricting 
access to divers or hook and line fishers in any part of the sanctuary 
as long as users do not injure or possess any sanctuaries resources 
(see FEIS regulations Table 1.1, Chapter 1, Section 1.4). NOAA 
determined through the Sanctuary Advisory Council process and through 
public input that the expansion would allow for multiple uses of the 
sanctuary while addressing threats to sanctuary resources, as is set 
forth in NMSA Section 301. For additional details pertaining to impacts 
to socioeconomic resources such as recreational diving, please refer to 
FEIS Chapter 5.
    68. Comment: NOAA received comments from the diving industry and 
scuba divers supporting sanctuary expansion. Divers urged NOAA to 
install mooring buoys in the expansion areas to increase access and to 
provide better maintenance of the mooring buoys and longlines.
    Response: NOAA intends to extend the current management regime to 
the expansion areas, under which the sanctuary would provide and 
maintain mooring buoys so that vessels (< 100 feet long) could safely 
moor in the sanctuary boundaries, as is logistically feasible. See the 
current FGBNMS Management Plan.

Regulatory Impact Review (RIR)

    NOAA received eight comments on the Bureau of Ocean Management's 
(BOEM) analysis (the RIR) (85 FR 74630, November 23, 2020) and 
collectively responds to those comments here.
    69. Comment: NOAA received comments expressing concern about the 
short length of the period provided for public comment, suggesting (1) 
it was not long enough to provide substantive feedback; (2) no similar 
National Marine Sanctuary System has offered a 15-day comment period; 
and (3) that it was not circulated with other documents prior to this 
period. NOAA also received a request to provide justification for the 
legality of the 15-day comment period, and further requested that NOAA 
extend the comment period for 60 days.
    Response: The request to extend the comment period is denied. Prior 
to soliciting public comment for the RIR, a 60-day comment period was 
open for the proposed rule, including a fulsome summary of the RIR, 
which allowed the public to comment on the proposed action in its 
entirety (85 FR 25359, May 1, 2020). On November 23, 2020, NOAA 
acknowledged the oversight of not circulating the RIR, and reopened the 
public comment period (85 FR 74630). Given that NOAA provided 60 days 
for public comment period on the proposed rule, which contained a 
summary of the BOEM analysis, the additional comment period is 
reasonable.
    70. Comment: NOAA received comments suggesting that the RIR was 
outdated and requesting a new analysis, suggesting that a decline in 
the current value of oil and gas and other hydrocarbon resources leads 
to mistaken assumptions in the current RIR. Additionally, commenters 
suggest that the RIR is no longer an accurate portrayal of expected 
impacts to the oil and gas industry. According to the commenters, lower 
oil and gas prices reduce the desire to explore and develop resources 
in the region and, thus, oil and gas resources cannot be considered 
economically recoverable.
    Response: NOAA disagrees with this comment due to the uncertainty 
in determining future oil prices, and because BOEM's February 2019 
report provides the best available economic information. NOAA 
summarized this analysis in the proposed rule for sanctuary expansion 
and further evaluated impacts of this action on the oil and gas 
industry in their Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS); see 
Chapter 5, Section 5.3.9.5.
    71. Comment: NOAA received comments requesting the other 
alternatives be re-evaluated in light of the analysis presented in the 
RIR.
    Response: NOAA updated the analyses of all alternatives in the 
FEIS; see Chapters 4 and 5. Ultimately, NOAA decided to move forward 
with the Revised Preferred Alternative, as presented in the proposed 
rule, as their Final Preferred Alternative.

VI. Classification

A. National Marine Sanctuaries Act

    Section 301(b) of the NMSA (16 U.S.C. 1431) provides authority for 
comprehensive and coordinated conservation and management of national 
marine sanctuaries in coordination with other resource management 
authorities. Section 304(a)(4) of the NMSA (16 U.S.C. 1434) requires 
that the procedures specified in Section 304 for designating a national 
marine sanctuary be followed for modifying any term of designation. 
This action, in addition to expanding the sanctuary, is revising the 
terms of designation (e.g., scope of regulations) for the FGBNMS. In 
accordance with Section 304, the documents relevant to the expansion of 
Flower Garden Banks

[[Page 4952]]

are being submitted to the House Resources Committee and the Senate 
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Section 304(a)(5) 
of the NMSA also requires that NOAA consult with the appropriate 
Federal fishery management council on any action proposing to regulate 
fishing in federal waters. Consultation with the Gulf of Mexico Fishery 
Management Council (GMFMC) is discussed above in part II sections 4 and 
5. NOAA solicited comments on potential exemptions for pelagic longline 
and spearfishing in the expanded area, and based on public comment and 
coordination with NOAA fisheries, determined to not grant these 
exemptions and to extend existing fishing regulations into the 
expansion areas.

B. National Environmental Policy Act

    In accordance with Section 304(a)(2) of the NMSA (16 U.S.C. 
1434(a)(2)), and the provisions of NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370), NOAA has 
prepared a FEIS to evaluate the impacts of this action. Because this 
environmental review began before September 14, 2020, which was the 
effective date of the amendments to the Council on Environmental 
Quality (CEQ) regulations implementing NEPA (85 FR 43372 (Jul. 16, 
2020)), the FEIS was prepared using the 1978 CEQ NEPA regulations. The 
Notice of Availability (December 11, 2020, 85 FR 80093) of the FGBNMS 
FEIS is available on the FGBNMS website.\18\ NEPA reviews initiated 
prior to the effective date of the 2020 revised CEQ regulations may be 
conducted using the 1978 version of the regulations. NOAA has also 
prepared a ROD. Copies of the FEIS and ROD are available at the address 
and website listed in the ADDRESSES section of this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ https://flowergarden.noaa.gov/management/sanctuaryexpansion.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Impact

    This final rule has been determined to be ``significant'' within 
the meaning of Executive Order 12866. Details on the estimated costs of 
this rule are discussed in BOEM's E.O. 13795 report, which is available 
on regulations.gov at docket NOAA-NOS-2019-033, and serves as a 
substitute for the Regulatory Impact Review (RIR). NOAA inadvertently 
omitted this report in the public docket for this action when the NPRM 
was published. NOAA subsequently published a Federal Register notice on 
November 23, 2020 (85 FR 74630), making the RIR available for public 
comments. Refer to section V of this rule for comments received on the 
RIR. Details on the estimated benefits of this action are discussed in 
Chapter 5, section 5.3 of the FEIS.

D. Executive Order 13132: Federalism Assessment

    NOAA has concluded this regulatory action does not have federalism 
implications sufficient to warrant preparation of a federalism 
assessment under Executive Order 13132. The area that is the subject of 
the final rule is located entirely within federal waters outside of 
state or local jurisdiction. This rule will not have a substantial or 
direct effect on states or local governments.

E. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    This Executive Order reaffirms the Federal government's commitment 
to tribal sovereignty, self-determination, and self-government. Its 
purpose is to ensure that all Executive departments and agencies 
consult with Indian tribes and respect tribal sovereignty as they 
develop policies on issues that impact Indian communities. This action 
is not anticipated to have substantial direct effects on one or more 
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and 
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibility 
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

F. Executive Order 13795: Implementing an America-First Offshore Energy 
Strategy

    Executive Order 13795 directs the Secretary of Commerce to refrain 
from designating or expanding any national marine sanctuary unless the 
proposal includes a full accounting from the DOI of any energy or 
mineral resource potential (including offshore energy from wind, oil, 
natural gas, methane hydrates, and any other sources that the Secretary 
of Commerce deems appropriate) within the expansion area, and the 
potential impact of the expansion on energy or mineral resource 
potential within the designated area. On February 25, 2019, BOEM 
provided NOAA with a review of offshore energy and mineral resource 
potential located within the revised expansion areas in accordance with 
Executive Order 13795. BOEM's report is available at the Supporting 
Document section of the docket identified by NOAA-NOS-2019-033, and 
posted at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=NOAA-NOS-2019-0033-1630.

G. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This final rule is not a significant energy action under the 
definition in E.O. 13211. It is not likely to have a significant 
adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Moreover, 
the Administrator of OIRA has not otherwise designated this action as a 
significant energy action. A Statement of Energy Effects, therefore, is 
not required.

H. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires Federal agencies to 
prepare an analysis of a rule's impact on small entities whenever the 
agency is required to publish a rule, unless the head of the agency can 
certify, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), that the action will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
Under section 605(b) of the RFA, if the head of an agency (or his or 
her designee) certifies that a rule will not have a significant impact 
on a substantial number of small entities, then the agency is not 
required to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis.
    Pursuant to section 605(b), the Chief Counsel for Regulations for 
the Department of Commerce, through delegation by the head of the 
agency, certified to the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration during the proposed rule stage that the regulations 
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities. The factual basis for certification was published in 
the proposed rule (85 FR 25367). No public comments were received 
regarding this certification. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility 
analysis was not required and none was prepared.

I. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The existing FGBNMS regulations contain a collection-of-information 
requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), approved by 
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB), under control number 0648-
0141, for collection-of-information for reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements under 15 CFR part 922. This final rule would not increase 
or otherwise revise the existing paperwork burdens.
    The public reporting burden for national marine sanctuary general 
permit applications is estimated to average 1 hour 30 minutes per 
application, including the time for reviewing the application 
instructions,

[[Page 4953]]

searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data 
needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. For 
special use permits, a collection-of information requirement is 
necessary to determine whether the activities are consistent with the 
terms and conditions of special use permits prescribed by the NMSA. The 
public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated 
to average twenty four (24) hours per response (application, annual 
report, and financial report), including the time for reviewing 
instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and 
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the 
collection of information. This estimate does not include additional 
time that may be required should the applicant be required to provide 
information to NOAA for the preparation of documentation that may be 
required under NEPA (16 U.S.C. 1431 et seq.).
    NOAA determined that this final rule would not appreciably change 
the average annual number of respondents or the reporting burden for 
the information requirements supporting special use or research permits 
because few activities requiring new permits are expected for the new 
areas. Much of the research is expected to be conducted by the 
sanctuary, and other uses that require permits are anticipated with 
very low intensity in the proposed expansion areas. NOAA also 
determined that these regulations do not necessitate a modification to 
its information collection approval by the Office of Management and 
Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act. Comments on this 
determination were solicited in the proposed rule, and no public 
comments were received. Notwithstanding any other provision of 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 Paperwork Reduction Act, unless that 
collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control 
number.

J. National Historic Preservation Act

    The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA; 16 U.S.C. 470 et 
seq.) is intended to preserve historical and archaeological sites in 
the United States of America. The act created the National Register of 
Historic Places, the list of National Historic Landmarks, and the State 
Historic Preservation Offices. Section 106 of the NHPA requires Federal 
agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on 
historic properties, and afford the Advisory Council on Historic 
Preservation (ACHP) a reasonable opportunity to comment. The historic 
preservation review process mandated by Section 106 is outlined in 
regulations issued by ACHP (36 CFR part 800). Pursuant to 36 CFR 
800.16(l)(1), historic properties include: ``any prehistoric or 
historic district, site, building, structure or object included in, or 
eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places 
maintained by the Secretary of the Interior.'' The term includes 
artifacts, records, and remains that are related to and located within 
such properties. NOAA did not identify any known historic properties 
within the boundaries of the Final Preferred Alternative, and received 
no public comments regarding historic properties in the Final Preferred 
Alternative boundaries.

K. Coastal Zone Management Act

    Section 307 of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA; 16 U.S.C. 
1456) requires Federal agencies carrying out an activity that would 
affect any land or water use or natural resource of the coastal zone to 
provide a consistency determination to the relevant state agencies 
before final approval of the agency action. Copies of the Draft 
Environmental Impact Statement were provided to five Gulf Coast States 
(Texas, Louisiana, Alabama, Florida, and Mississippi), soliciting 
feedback on reasonably foreseeable effects on coastal resources and 
uses. Responses were received from Mississippi Department of Marine 
Resources and the Texas General Land Office indicating no objection to 
the proposed boundary changes or the DEIS. With this information in 
addition to analysis provided in the FEIS, NOAA determined this action 
would have no effect on coastal resources. On November 16, 2020, NOAA 
prepared a consistency determination, which was submitted to the five 
Gulf Coast States along with the proposed rule. In response to this 
request, the five Gulf States of Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, 
Mississippi, and Texas concurred with NOAA's consistency determination.

List of Subjects in 15 CFR Part 922

    Administrative practice and procedure, Coastal zone, Fishing gear, 
Marine resources, Natural resources, Penalties, Recreation and 
recreation areas, Wildlife.

Nicole R. LeBoeuf,
Acting Assistant Administrator for Ocean Services and Coastal Zone 
Management, National Ocean Service.

    Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, NOAA amends part 922, 
title 15 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 922--NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY PROGRAM REGULATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 922 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart L--Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary

0
2. Revise Sec.  922.120 to read as follows:


Sec.  922.120   Boundary.

    The Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary (sanctuary) 
boundary encompasses a total area of approximately 121 square nautical 
miles (160.35 square miles) of offshore ocean waters, and submerged 
lands thereunder, along the continental shelf and shelf edge in the 
northwestern Gulf of Mexico. The entire sanctuary boundary is comprised 
of 19 unique polygons. The precise boundary coordinates for each 
polygon are listed in appendix A to this subpart.

0
3. In Sec.  922.121, revise the term ``No-activity zone'' to read as 
follows:


Sec.  922.121   Definitions.

* * * * *
    No-activity zone (applicable only to oil and gas industry 
activities) means the geographic areas delineated by the Department of 
the Interior in Topographic Features Stipulations for Outer Continental 
Shelf (OCS) lease sales as defined by a bathymetric contour (isobath) 
ranging from 55-85m in depth, with the exception of Stetson Bank (52m) 
and East and West Flower Garden Banks (100m). The Notice to Lessees 
(NTL) No. 2009-G39 provides and consolidates guidance for the avoidance 
and protection of biologically sensitive features and areas (i.e. 
topographic features, pinnacles, live bottoms (low relief features)) 
and other potentially sensitive biological features (PSBFs) when 
conducting operations in water depths shallower than 980 feet (300 
meters) in the Gulf of Mexico. NTL 2009-G39 remains in effect pursuant 
to NTL No. 2015-N02. The no-activity zones are based on depth contours 
as noted for the following Banks: Stetson Bank (52 meters), MacNeil 
Bank (82

[[Page 4954]]

meters), Rankin Banks (including 28 Fathom Bank) (85 meters), Bright 
Bank (85 meters), Geyer Bank (85 meters), Elvers Bank (85 meters), 
McGrail Bank (85 meters), Bouma Bank (85 meters), Rezak Bank (85 
meters), Sidner Bank (85 meters), Sonnier Bank (55 meters), Alderdice 
Bank (80 meters), and Parker Bank (85 meters). For East and West Flower 
Garden Banks, the no-activity zones are based on the ``\1/4\ \1/4\ \1/
4\'' aliquot 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. The precise aliquot part description of 
these areas around East and West Flower Garden Banks are provided in 
appendix A of this subpart.

0
4. Revise Sec.  922.122(e)(1) to read as follows:


Sec.  922.122   Prohibited or otherwise regulated activities.

* * * * *
    (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 the revised terms of sanctuary 
designation. Such activities shall be carried out in a manner that 
minimizes any adverse impact on Sanctuary resources or qualities. The 
prohibitions in paragraphs (a)(2) 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 impact on 
Sanctuary resources or qualities. Such activities shall be carried out 
in a manner that minimizes any adverse impact on Sanctuary resources or 
qualities. New activities with the potential for significant adverse 
impact 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 or qualities.
* * * * *

0
5. Revise appendix A to subpart L to read as follows:

Appendix A to Subpart L of Part 922--Flower Garden Banks National 
Marine Sanctuary Boundary Coordinates

Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary

    Coordinates listed in this appendix are unprojected (Geographic 
Coordinate System) and based on the North American Datum of 1983 
(NAD83).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Point ID No.              Polygon ID No.                 Bank(s)              Latitude        Longitude
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1........................  1........................  Stetson Bank..............        28.15673       -94.29673
2........................  1........................  Stetson Bank..............        28.15661       -94.30312
3........................  1........................  Stetson Bank..............        28.15862       -94.30888
4........................  1........................  Stetson Bank..............        28.16950       -94.30839
5........................  1........................  Stetson Bank..............        28.17386       -94.30257
6........................  1........................  Stetson Bank..............        28.17583       -94.29445
7........................  1........................  Stetson Bank..............        28.17543       -94.29327
8........................  1........................  Stetson Bank..............        28.17284       -94.28952
9........................  1........................  Stetson Bank..............        28.16924       -94.28677
10.......................  1........................  Stetson Bank..............        28.16428       -94.28681
11.......................  1........................  Stetson Bank..............        28.16274       -94.28756
12.......................  1........................  Stetson Bank..............        28.15796       -94.29047
13.......................  1........................  Stetson Bank..............        28.15673       -94.29673
1........................  2........................  West Flower Garden Bank...        27.84363       -93.78549
2........................  2........................  West Flower Garden Bank...        27.81750       -93.81056
3........................  2........................  West Flower Garden Bank...        27.81752       -93.84752
4........................  2........................  West Flower Garden Bank...        27.83069       -93.86271
5........................  2........................  West Flower Garden Bank...        27.81735       -93.87490
6........................  2........................  West Flower Garden Bank...        27.83220       -93.89185
7........................  2........................  West Flower Garden Bank...        27.85854       -93.89369
8........................  2........................  West Flower Garden Bank...        27.87925       -93.87853
9........................  2........................  West Flower Garden Bank...        27.92626       -93.82011
10.......................  2........................  West Flower Garden Bank...        27.92620       -93.81759
11.......................  2........................  West Flower Garden Bank...        27.91801       -93.80801
12.......................  2........................  West Flower Garden Bank...        27.90969       -93.77939
13.......................  2........................  West Flower Garden Bank...        27.88644       -93.77939
14.......................  2........................  West Flower Garden Bank...        27.84363       -93.78549
1........................  3........................  Horseshoe Bank............        27.82317       -93.62789
2........................  3........................  Horseshoe Bank............        27.80927       -93.63578
3........................  3........................  Horseshoe Bank............        27.80568       -93.65541
4........................  3........................  Horseshoe Bank............        27.79429       -93.66555
5........................  3........................  Horseshoe Bank............        27.78357       -93.68846
6........................  3........................  Horseshoe Bank............        27.79640       -93.70534
7........................  3........................  Horseshoe Bank............        27.81855       -93.75198
8........................  3........................  Horseshoe Bank............        27.82742       -93.74743
9........................  3........................  Horseshoe Bank............        27.81868       -93.68868
10.......................  3........................  Horseshoe Bank............        27.83143       -93.68941
11.......................  3........................  Horseshoe Bank............        27.84699       -93.70079
12.......................  3........................  Horseshoe Bank............        27.87165       -93.73947
13.......................  3........................  Horseshoe Bank............        27.88602       -93.73294
14.......................  3........................  Horseshoe Bank............        27.87252       -93.64648
15.......................  3........................  Horseshoe Bank............        27.85861       -93.63908
16.......................  3........................  Horseshoe Bank............        27.82317       -93.62789
1........................  4........................  East Flower Garden Bank...        27.89455       -93.57040
2........................  4........................  East Flower Garden Bank...        27.87999       -93.61309
3........................  4........................  East Flower Garden Bank...        27.88003       -93.62961

[[Page 4955]]

 
4........................  4........................  East Flower Garden Bank...        27.89330       -93.64172
5........................  4........................  East Flower Garden Bank...        27.92101       -93.64747
6........................  4........................  East Flower Garden Bank...        27.95899       -93.64490
7........................  4........................  East Flower Garden Bank...        27.97485       -93.63086
8........................  4........................  East Flower Garden Bank...        27.98177       -93.60996
9........................  4........................  East Flower Garden Bank...        27.98554       -93.58188
10.......................  4........................  East Flower Garden Bank...        27.95206       -93.57810
11.......................  4........................  East Flower Garden Bank...        27.92151       -93.56880
12.......................  4........................  East Flower Garden Bank...        27.89455       -93.57040
1........................  5........................  MacNeil Bank..............        28.00226       -93.51550
2........................  5........................  MacNeil Bank..............        27.99707       -93.52669
3........................  5........................  MacNeil Bank..............        28.00136       -93.52423
4........................  5........................  MacNeil Bank..............        28.00518       -93.52425
5........................  5........................  MacNeil Bank..............        28.01694       -93.52233
6........................  5........................  MacNeil Bank..............        28.01883       -93.51264
7........................  5........................  MacNeil Bank..............        28.03670       -93.50300
8........................  5........................  MacNeil Bank..............        28.03724       -93.49844
9........................  5........................  MacNeil Bank..............        28.03113       -93.49199
10.......................  5........................  MacNeil Bank..............        28.01300       -93.49624
11.......................  5........................  MacNeil Bank..............        28.00331       -93.50725
12.......................  5........................  MacNeil Bank..............        28.00226       -93.51550
1........................  6........................  Rankin Bank & 28--Fathom          27.92554       -93.40593
                                                       Bank.
2........................  6........................  Rankin Bank & 28--Fathom          27.92039       -93.41021
                                                       Bank.
3........................  6........................  Rankin Bank & 28--Fathom          27.92035       -93.42474
                                                       Bank.
4........................  6........................  Rankin Bank & 28--Fathom          27.91387       -93.43165
                                                       Bank.
5........................  6........................  Rankin Bank & 28--Fathom          27.90829       -93.42234
                                                       Bank.
6........................  6........................  Rankin Bank & 28--Fathom          27.90641       -93.42535
                                                       Bank.
7........................  6........................  Rankin Bank & 28--Fathom          27.90489       -93.44219
                                                       Bank.
8........................  6........................  Rankin Bank & 28--Fathom          27.89549       -93.44396
                                                       Bank.
9........................  6........................  Rankin Bank & 28--Fathom          27.88892       -93.43403
                                                       Bank.
10.......................  6........................  Rankin Bank & 28--Fathom          27.88072       -93.42805
                                                       Bank.
11.......................  6........................  Rankin Bank & 28--Fathom          27.87676       -93.42787
                                                       Bank.
12.......................  6........................  Rankin Bank & 28--Fathom          27.88449       -93.44458
                                                       Bank.
13.......................  6........................  Rankin Bank & 28--Fathom          27.88803       -93.45159
                                                       Bank.
14.......................  6........................  Rankin Bank & 28--Fathom          27.88794       -93.45905
                                                       Bank.
15.......................  6........................  Rankin Bank & 28--Fathom          27.89234       -93.46410
                                                       Bank.
16.......................  6........................  Rankin Bank & 28--Fathom          27.89971       -93.45571
                                                       Bank.
17.......................  6........................  Rankin Bank & 28--Fathom          27.90910       -93.45343
                                                       Bank.
18.......................  6........................  Rankin Bank & 28--Fathom          27.92847       -93.45335
                                                       Bank.
19.......................  6........................  Rankin Bank & 28--Fathom          27.93407       -93.44743
                                                       Bank.
20.......................  6........................  Rankin Bank & 28--Fathom          27.93599       -93.44215
                                                       Bank.
21.......................  6........................  Rankin Bank & 28--Fathom          27.92554       -93.40593
                                                       Bank.
1........................  7........................  Bright Bank...............        27.87310       -93.27056
2........................  7........................  Bright Bank...............        27.86549       -93.29462
3........................  7........................  Bright Bank...............        27.87300       -93.31055
4........................  7........................  Bright Bank...............        27.89058       -93.32193
5........................  7........................  Bright Bank...............        27.89839       -93.31987
6........................  7........................  Bright Bank...............        27.90336       -93.30953
7........................  7........................  Bright Bank...............        27.91010       -93.30562
8........................  7........................  Bright Bank...............        27.91634       -93.29292
9........................  7........................  Bright Bank...............        27.91263       -93.28816
10.......................  7........................  Bright Bank...............        27.90354       -93.28386
11.......................  7........................  Bright Bank...............        27.90253       -93.27238
12.......................  7........................  Bright Bank...............        27.89927       -93.26729
13.......................  7........................  Bright Bank...............        27.87310       -93.27056
1........................  8........................  Geyer Bank................        27.78848       -93.07794
2........................  8........................  Geyer Bank................        27.79458       -93.08448
3........................  8........................  Geyer Bank................        27.83313       -93.07913
4........................  8........................  Geyer Bank................        27.85306       -93.08279
5........................  8........................  Geyer Bank................        27.86328       -93.07885
6........................  8........................  Geyer Bank................        27.86908       -93.06974
7........................  8........................  Geyer Bank................        27.86556       -93.05944
8........................  8........................  Geyer Bank................        27.85211       -93.05391
9........................  8........................  Geyer Bank................        27.83713       -93.05725
10.......................  8........................  Geyer Bank................        27.82540       -93.04312
11.......................  8........................  Geyer Bank................        27.82490       -93.04276
12.......................  8........................  Geyer Bank................        27.80846       -93.03412
13.......................  8........................  Geyer Bank................        27.78997       -93.04096
14.......................  8........................  Geyer Bank................        27.78602       -93.05384
15.......................  8........................  Geyer Bank................        27.78848       -93.07794
1........................  9A.......................  Elvers Bank--A............        27.82285       -92.88605
2........................  9A.......................  Elvers Bank--A............        27.82087       -92.88600
3........................  9A.......................  Elvers Bank--A............        27.82009       -92.88670

[[Page 4956]]

 
4........................  9A.......................  Elvers Bank--A............        27.81869       -92.89235
5........................  9A.......................  Elvers Bank--A............        27.81690       -92.89404
6........................  9A.......................  Elvers Bank--A............        27.81615       -92.89653
7........................  9A.......................  Elvers Bank--A............        27.80645       -92.90884
8........................  9A.......................  Elvers Bank--A............        27.81221       -92.92082
9........................  9A.......................  Elvers Bank--A............        27.81599       -92.93908
10.......................  9A.......................  Elvers Bank--A............        27.81934       -92.93940
11.......................  9A.......................  Elvers Bank--A............        27.82250       -92.92465
12.......................  9A.......................  Elvers Bank--A............        27.82809       -92.91359
13.......................  9A.......................  Elvers Bank--A............        27.83973       -92.89876
14.......................  9A.......................  Elvers Bank--A............        27.83972       -92.88038
15.......................  9A.......................  Elvers Bank--A............        27.83003       -92.86983
16.......................  9A.......................  Elvers Bank--A............        27.82285       -92.88605
1........................  9B.......................  Elvers Bank--B............        27.85645       -92.92310
2........................  9B.......................  Elvers Bank--B............        27.85662       -92.91922
3........................  9B.......................  Elvers Bank--B............        27.85334       -92.91631
4........................  9B.......................  Elvers Bank--B............        27.85076       -92.91727
5........................  9B.......................  Elvers Bank--B............        27.84903       -92.92097
6........................  9B.......................  Elvers Bank--B............        27.85145       -92.92524
7........................  9B.......................  Elvers Bank--B............        27.85645       -92.92310
1........................  10A......................  McGrail Bank--A...........        27.97684       -92.58489
2........................  10A......................  McGrail Bank--A...........        27.97749       -92.57716
3........................  10A......................  McGrail Bank--A...........        27.97475       -92.56753
4........................  10A......................  McGrail Bank--A...........        27.97304       -92.56191
5........................  10A......................  McGrail Bank--A...........        27.95173       -92.53902
6........................  10A......................  McGrail Bank--A...........        27.94849       -92.54254
7........................  10A......................  McGrail Bank--A...........        27.96632       -92.56116
8........................  10A......................  McGrail Bank--A...........        27.96792       -92.58152
9........................  10A......................  McGrail Bank--A...........        27.95989       -92.58187
10.......................  10A......................  McGrail Bank--A...........        27.95409       -92.57057
11.......................  10A......................  McGrail Bank--A...........        27.94951       -92.57135
12.......................  10A......................  McGrail Bank--A...........        27.94920       -92.57994
13.......................  10A......................  McGrail Bank--A...........        27.95846       -92.60274
14.......................  10A......................  McGrail Bank--A...........        27.97286       -92.61901
15.......................  10A......................  McGrail Bank--A...........        27.98096       -92.60158
16.......................  10A......................  McGrail Bank--A...........        27.97684       -92.58489
1........................  10B......................  McGrail Bank--B...........        27.94116       -92.54750
2........................  10B......................  McGrail Bank--B...........        27.94180       -92.54543
3........................  10B......................  McGrail Bank--B...........        27.94010       -92.54202
4........................  10B......................  McGrail Bank--B...........        27.93616       -92.54151
5........................  10B......................  McGrail Bank--B...........        27.93481       -92.54398
6........................  10B......................  McGrail Bank--B...........        27.93529       -92.54803
7........................  10B......................  McGrail Bank--B...........        27.93859       -92.54901
8........................  10B......................  McGrail Bank--B...........        27.94116       -92.54750
1........................  11.......................  Bouma Bank................        28.07909       -92.47305
2........................  11.......................  Bouma Bank................        28.07370       -92.44900
3........................  11.......................  Bouma Bank................        28.07370       -92.44891
4........................  11.......................  Bouma Bank................        28.06544       -92.43518
5........................  11.......................  Bouma Bank................        28.05162       -92.43380
6........................  11.......................  Bouma Bank................        28.03846       -92.44065
7........................  11.......................  Bouma Bank................        28.03463       -92.45289
8........................  11.......................  Bouma Bank................        28.03114       -92.45537
9........................  11.......................  Bouma Bank................        28.02915       -92.46338
10.......................  11.......................  Bouma Bank................        28.03154       -92.47259
11.......................  11.......................  Bouma Bank................        28.04166       -92.47229
12.......................  11.......................  Bouma Bank................        28.04525       -92.46717
13.......................  11.......................  Bouma Bank................        28.04751       -92.47310
14.......................  11.......................  Bouma Bank................        28.04676       -92.48308
15.......................  11.......................  Bouma Bank................        28.04866       -92.48462
16.......................  11.......................  Bouma Bank................        28.05687       -92.48145
17.......................  11.......................  Bouma Bank................        28.06388       -92.49262
18.......................  11.......................  Bouma Bank................        28.07018       -92.49141
19.......................  11.......................  Bouma Bank................        28.06974       -92.48613
20.......................  11.......................  Bouma Bank................        28.06594       -92.48098
21.......................  11.......................  Bouma Bank................        28.07109       -92.47708
22.......................  11.......................  Bouma Bank................        28.07683       -92.48071
23.......................  11.......................  Bouma Bank................        28.07909       -92.47305
1........................  12.......................  Sonnier Bank..............        28.32652       -92.45356
2........................  12.......................  Sonnier Bank..............        28.32495       -92.45647
3........................  12.......................  Sonnier Bank..............        28.32501       -92.45965
4........................  12.......................  Sonnier Bank..............        28.32796       -92.46626
5........................  12.......................  Sonnier Bank..............        28.33523       -92.47536
6........................  12.......................  Sonnier Bank..............        28.34453       -92.47511

[[Page 4957]]

 
7........................  12.......................  Sonnier Bank..............        28.34840       -92.47439
8........................  12.......................  Sonnier Bank..............        28.35256       -92.47181
9........................  12.......................  Sonnier Bank..............        28.35416       -92.46784
10.......................  12.......................  Sonnier Bank..............        28.35456       -92.46135
11.......................  12.......................  Sonnier Bank..............        28.35351       -92.45729
12.......................  12.......................  Sonnier Bank..............        28.35174       -92.45107
13.......................  12.......................  Sonnier Bank..............        28.34852       -92.44564
14.......................  12.......................  Sonnier Bank..............        28.34303       -92.44045
15.......................  12.......................  Sonnier Bank..............        28.34048       -92.44024
16.......................  12.......................  Sonnier Bank..............        28.33584       -92.44669
17.......................  12.......................  Sonnier Bank..............        28.33068       -92.44985
18.......................  12.......................  Sonnier Bank..............        28.32652       -92.45356
1........................  13.......................  Rezak Bank................        27.95420       -92.36641
2........................  13.......................  Rezak Bank................        27.95847       -92.37739
3........................  13.......................  Rezak Bank................        27.95629       -92.38599
4........................  13.......................  Rezak Bank................        27.97297       -92.39248
5........................  13.......................  Rezak Bank................        27.97892       -92.39845
6........................  13.......................  Rezak Bank................        27.98869       -92.39964
7........................  13.......................  Rezak Bank................        27.99372       -92.38244
8........................  13.......................  Rezak Bank................        27.98603       -92.36697
9........................  13.......................  Rezak Bank................        27.98022       -92.36429
10.......................  13.......................  Rezak Bank................        27.97442       -92.36996
11.......................  13.......................  Rezak Bank................        27.96006       -92.36854
12.......................  13.......................  Rezak Bank................        27.95420       -92.36641
1........................  14.......................  Sidner Bank...............        27.93046       -92.36762
2........................  14.......................  Sidner Bank...............        27.91368       -92.37398
3........................  14.......................  Sidner Bank...............        27.91462       -92.38530
4........................  14.......................  Sidner Bank...............        27.91976       -92.39427
5........................  14.......................  Sidner Bank...............        27.92306       -92.38792
6........................  14.......................  Sidner Bank...............        27.94525       -92.38305
7........................  14.......................  Sidner Bank...............        27.94166       -92.37565
8........................  14.......................  Sidner Bank...............        27.94231       -92.37189
9........................  14.......................  Sidner Bank...............        27.93046       -92.36762
1........................  15A......................  Parker Bank--A............        27.95067       -92.00294
2........................  15A......................  Parker Bank--A............        27.94177       -91.99762
3........................  15A......................  Parker Bank--A............        27.93547       -91.99568
4........................  15A......................  Parker Bank--A............        27.92937       -91.99981
5........................  15A......................  Parker Bank--A............        27.93224       -92.02999
6........................  15A......................  Parker Bank--A............        27.93401       -92.03946
7........................  15A......................  Parker Bank--A............        27.93958       -92.05015
8........................  15A......................  Parker Bank--A............        27.95012       -92.05050
9........................  15A......................  Parker Bank--A............        27.96214       -92.05407
10.......................  15A......................  Parker Bank--A............        27.96630       -92.04745
11.......................  15A......................  Parker Bank--A............        27.96869       -92.04120
12.......................  15A......................  Parker Bank--A............        27.96925       -92.02758
13.......................  15A......................  Parker Bank--A............        27.96678       -92.02175
14.......................  15A......................  Parker Bank--A............        27.95067       -92.00294
1........................  15B......................  Parker Bank--B............        27.96082       -91.99450
2........................  15B......................  Parker Bank--B............        27.96432       -91.99285
3........................  15B......................  Parker Bank--B............        27.96566       -91.99014
4........................  15B......................  Parker Bank--B............        27.96385       -91.98600
5........................  15B......................  Parker Bank--B............        27.96149       -91.98639
6........................  15B......................  Parker Bank--B............        27.95931       -91.98760
7........................  15B......................  Parker Bank--B............        27.95824       -91.99183
8........................  15B......................  Parker Bank--B............        27.96082       -91.99450
1........................  16.......................  Alderdice Bank............        28.09726       -91.99328
2........................  16.......................  Alderdice Bank............        28.09474       -91.98619
3........................  16.......................  Alderdice Bank............        28.09569       -91.97526
4........................  16.......................  Alderdice Bank............        28.09184       -91.97361
5........................  16.......................  Alderdice Bank............        28.08410       -91.97273
6........................  16.......................  Alderdice Bank............        28.07506       -91.97457
7........................  16.......................  Alderdice Bank............        28.07053       -91.98465
8........................  16.......................  Alderdice Bank............        28.06959       -91.99347
9........................  16.......................  Alderdice Bank............        28.06819       -92.00512
10.......................  16.......................  Alderdice Bank............        28.07026       -92.01321
11.......................  16.......................  Alderdice Bank............        28.07562       -92.02032
12.......................  16.......................  Alderdice Bank............        28.08058       -92.02436
13.......................  16.......................  Alderdice Bank............        28.08463       -92.02577
14.......................  16.......................  Alderdice Bank............        28.09024       -92.02296
15.......................  16.......................  Alderdice Bank............        28.09487       -92.01231
16.......................  16.......................  Alderdice Bank............        28.09627       -92.00735
17.......................  16.......................  Alderdice Bank............        28.09507       -92.00008
18.......................  16.......................  Alderdice Bank............        28.09726       -91.99328
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 4958]]

0
6. Revise appendix B to subpart L to read as follows:

Appendix B to Subpart L of Part 922--Flower Garden Banks National 
Marine Sanctuary--Terms of Designation

Preamble

    Under the authority of title III of the Marine Protection, 
Research, and Sanctuaries Act, as amended (``the Act''), 16 U.S.C. 
1431 et seq., 19 separate unique polygon areas of ocean waters and 
the submerged lands thereunder, along the continental shelf and 
shelf edge in the northwestern Gulf of Mexico, as described in 
Article II, are hereby designated as Flower Garden Banks National 
Marine Sanctuary for the purposes of protecting and managing the 
conservation, ecological, recreation, research, education, historic 
and aesthetic resources and qualities of these areas.

Article I--Effect of Designation

    The Act authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to issue such final 
regulations as are necessary and reasonable to implement the 
designation, including managing and protecting the conservation, 
recreational, ecological, historical, research, educational, and 
esthetic resources and qualities of a sanctuary. Section 1 of 
Article IV of this Designation Document lists those activities that 
may be regulated on the effective date of designation or at some 
later date in order to protect Sanctuary resources and qualities. 
Thus, the act of designation empowers the Secretary of Commerce to 
regulate the activities listed in Section 1. Listing does not 
necessarily mean that an activity will be regulated. However, if an 
activity is not listed it may not be regulated, except on an 
emergency basis, unless Section 1 of Article IV is amended by the 
same procedures by which the original designation was made.

Article II--Description of the Area

    The Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary (Sanctuary) 
boundary encompasses a total area of approximately 121 square 
nautical miles (160 square miles) of offshore ocean waters, and 
submerged lands thereunder, along the continental shelf and shelf 
edge in the northwestern Gulf of Mexico. The entire sanctuary 
boundary is composed of 19 unique polygons. The precise boundary 
coordinates for each polygon are listed in appendix A to this 
subpart.
    The sanctuary boundary for Polygon 1 begins at Point 1 and 
continues in numerical order to Point 13 and contains the submerged 
feature of Stetson Bank with an area of approximately 1.1 square 
nautical miles (1.5 square miles), located approximately 71 nautical 
miles (82 miles) south-southeast of Galveston, Texas. The sanctuary 
boundary for Polygon 2 begins at Point 1 and continues in numerical 
order to Point 14 and contains the submerged feature of West Flower 
Garden Bank with an area of approximately 28.0 square nautical miles 
(37.1 square miles), located approximately 97 nautical miles (111 
miles) southeast of Galveston, Texas. The sanctuary boundary for 
Polygon 3 begins at Point 1 and continues in numerical order to 
Point 16 and contains the submerged feature of Horseshoe Bank with 
an area of approximately 21.7 square nautical miles (28.7 square 
miles), located approximately 102 nautical miles (117 miles) 
southeast of Galveston, Texas. The sanctuary boundary for Polygon 4 
begins at Point 1 and continues in numerical order to Point 12 and 
contains the submerged feature of East Flower Garden Bank with an 
area of approximately 21.0 square nautical miles (27.8 square 
miles), located approximately 101 nautical miles (116 miles) 
southeast of Galveston, Texas. The sanctuary boundary for Polygon 5 
begins at Point 1 and continues in numerical order to Point 12 and 
contains the submerged feature of MacNeil Bank with an area of 
approximately 2.1 square nautical miles (2.7 square miles), located 
approximately 103 nautical miles (118 miles) southeast of Galveston, 
Texas. The sanctuary boundary for Polygon 6 begins at Point 1 and 
continues in numerical order to Point 21 and contains the submerged 
features of Rankin Bank and 28 Fathom Bank with an area of 
approximately 4.2 square nautical miles (5.6 square miles), located 
approximately 109 nautical miles (126 miles) southeast of Galveston, 
Texas. The sanctuary boundary for Polygon 7 begins at Point 1 and 
continues in numerical order to Point 13 and contains the submerged 
features of Bright Bank with an area of approximately 5.8 square 
nautical miles (7.6 square miles), located approximately 115 
nautical miles (133 miles) southeast of Galveston, Texas. The 
sanctuary boundary for Polygon 8 begins at Point 1 and continues in 
numerical order to Point 15 and contains the submerged feature of 
Geyer Bank within an area of approximately 8.7 square nautical miles 
(11.5 square miles), located approximately 126 nautical miles (145 
miles) southeast of Galveston, Texas. The sanctuary boundary for 
Polygon 9A begins at Point 1 and continues in numerical order to 
Point 16 and contains part of the submerged feature of Elvers Bank 
within an area of approximately 3.3 square nautical miles (4.4 
square miles), located approximately 134 nautical miles (154 miles) 
southeast of Galveston, Texas. The sanctuary boundary for Polygon 9B 
begins at Point 1 and continues in numerical order to Point 7 and 
also contains part of the submerged feature of Elvers Bank within an 
area of approximately 0.1 square nautical miles (0.2 square miles), 
located approximately 133 nautical miles (153 miles) southeast of 
Galveston, Texas. The sanctuary boundary for Polygon 10A begins at 
Point 1 and continues in numerical order to Point 16 and contains 
part of the submerged feature of McGrail Bank with an area of 
approximately 3.4 square nautical miles (4.5 square miles), located 
approximately 142 nautical miles (163 miles) southeast of Galveston, 
Texas. The sanctuary boundary for Polygon 10B begins at Point 1 and 
continues in numerical order to Point 8 and also contains part of 
the submerged feature of McGrail Bank with an area of approximately 
0.1 square nautical miles (0.2 square miles), located approximately 
146 nautical miles (168 miles) southeast of Galveston, Texas. The 
sanctuary boundary for Polygon 11 begins at Point 1 and continues in 
numerical order to Point 23 and contains the submerged feature of 
Bouma Bank with an area of approximately 5.8 square nautical miles 
(7.7 square miles), located approximately 145 nautical miles (167 
miles) southeast of Galveston, Texas. The sanctuary boundary for 
Polygon 12 begins at Point 1 and continues in numerical order to 
Point 18 and contains the submerged feature of Sonnier Bank with an 
area of approximately 2.3 square nautical miles (3.1 square miles), 
located approximately 138 nautical miles (159 miles) east-southeast 
of Galveston, Texas. The sanctuary boundary for Polygon 13 begins at 
Point 1 and continues in numerical order to Point 12 and contains 
the submerged feature of Rezak Bank with an area of approximately 
2.8 square nautical miles (3.7 square miles), located approximately 
151 nautical miles (174 miles) southeast of Galveston, Texas. The 
sanctuary boundary for Polygon 14 begins at Point 1 and continues in 
numerical order to Point 9 and contains the submerged feature of 
Sidner Bank with an area of approximately 1.5 square nautical miles 
(2.0 square miles), located approximately 153 nautical miles (177 
miles) southeast of Galveston, Texas. The sanctuary boundary for 
Polygon 15A begins at Point 1 and continues in numerical order to 
Point 14 and contains part of the submerged feature of Parker Bank 
within an area of approximately 5.2 square nautical miles (6.8 
square miles), located approximately 168 nautical miles (194 miles) 
southeast of Galveston, Texas. The sanctuary boundary for Polygon 
15B begins at Point 1 and continues in numerical order to Point 8 
and also contains part of the submerged feature of Parker Bank 
within an area of approximately 0.1 square nautical miles (0.2 
square miles), located approximately 171 nautical miles (197 miles) 
southeast of Galveston, Texas. The sanctuary boundary for Polygon 16 
begins at Point 1 and continues in numerical order to Point 18 and 
contains the submerged feature of Alderdice Bank within an area of 
approximately 3.8 square nautical miles (5.0 square miles), located 
approximately 166 nautical miles (191 miles) east-southeast of 
Galveston, Texas.

Article III--Characteristics of Area That Give it Particular Value

    The Sanctuary contains a series of underwater features located 
along the edge of the continental shelf in the northwestern Gulf of 
Mexico. These features are of interest from both a geological and 
biological perspective. Formed primarily as the result of the 
movement of underlying salt deposits (also called salt domes or salt 
diapirs), and bathed by waters of tropical origin, they contain 
important geological features, biological habitats and other marine 
resources of national significance. They contain highly productive 
marine ecosystems that support a variety of fish and invertebrate 
communities of biological and economic importance.
    The reefs and banks of the northwestern Gulf of Mexico are 
structurally complex and contain a range of marine habitats, 
including coral reefs, coralline algal reefs, algal nodule beds, 
mesophotic and deepwater reefs, and soft bottom communities. The 
composition,

[[Page 4959]]

diversity and vertical distribution of benthic communities on the 
banks are strongly influenced by the physical environment, including 
water temperature, turbidity and current regime. Geological features 
of interest include brine seeps, exposed basalt, methane seeps, and 
mud volcanoes. East and West Flower Garden Banks, the most well-
known of the features, sustain the northernmost living coral reefs 
on the U.S. continental shelf, considered among the healthiest coral 
reefs in the Caribbean and Western Atlantic region. A deeper water 
coral reef also exists at McGrail Bank, consisting primarily of 
large colonies of blushing star coral (Stephanocoenia intersepta) at 
depths between 140 and 160 feet. These coral reefs are isolated from 
other reef systems by over 300 nautical miles (342 miles) and exist 
under hydrographic conditions generally near the northern limit for 
tropical reef formation. Several other banks, including Stetson, 
Sonnier, Geyer, and Bright Banks, contain various combinations of 
non-reef building coral species known collectively as coral 
communities, comprised of sponges, stony corals, fire coral, leafy 
algae and coralline algae. The deeper portions of the banks host 
thriving mid-depth (or ``mesophotic'') coral habitats characterized 
by the presence of both light-dependent and deepwater corals, 
including black corals, gorgonian corals, and associated organisms. 
Biological communities are distributed among several interrelated 
biotic zones, including a coralline algae zone, deep reef rocky 
outcrops, and soft bottom communities. The complex and biologically 
productive ecological communities of the banks offer a combination 
of aesthetic appeal and recreational and research opportunity 
matched in few other ocean areas.
    The following are qualitative descriptions of the individual 
reefs and banks within the Sanctuary; specific boundary coordinates 
can be found in appendix A to this subpart.

a. Stetson Bank, Depth Range 56ft-194ft

    Boundaries encompass a claystone/siltstone ring feature of 
mesophotic coral habitat revealed by high resolution multibeam 
bathymetric surveys, and subsequently ground-truthed by remotely 
operated vehicle surveys. These features are surface expressions of 
the salt dome associated with the feature, and provide habitat for 
sponges, gorgonians, stony branching corals, black corals, and 
associated fish and mobile invertebrates.

b. West Flower Garden Bank, Depth Range 59ft-545ft

    Boundaries encompass mesophotic coral patch reefs to the north, 
southwest, and east of the existing sanctuary. These reefs provide 
coralline algae reef habitat for black corals, gorgonians, stony 
branching corals, and associated fish and mobile invertebrates.

c. East Flower Garden Bank, Depth Range 52ft-446ft

    Boundaries to encompass mesophotic coral patch reefs to the 
north and southeast of the existing sanctuary. These reefs provide 
deep coral habitat for dense populations of black corals, 
gorgonians, stony branching corals, and associated fish and mobile 
invertebrates.

d. Horseshoe Bank, Depth Range 243ft-614ft

    Extensive deepwater habitat and coralline algae reefs in the 
form of hundreds of patchy outcroppings covering an area of 
approximately 1.9 miles (3km) wide and having 16.4-49.2ft (5-15m) of 
relief above the seafloor, with dense assemblages of mesophotic 
black coral, gorgonians, stony branching corals, sponges, algae 
invertebrates, and fish; several conical-shaped mud volcanoes 
clustered near the center of the feature, with one rising 328ft 
(100m) above the sea floor.

e. MacNeil Bank, Depth Range 210ft-315ft

    Deep reef bedrock outcrops and coralline algae patch reefs 
harboring populations of black corals and gorgonians, sponges, fish, 
and mobile invertebrates.

f. Rankin/28 Fathom Banks, Depth Range 164ft-571ft

    Rankin Bank is just north of 28 Fathom Bank, and separated from 
it by a long trough, approximately 1,640-foot (500 m) wide, 
approximately 6,070-foot (1,850 m) which extends to a depth of 
approximately 570ft (174 m). The boundaries encompass the shallowest 
portions of Rankin and 28 Fathom Banks, which harbor coral algae 
reefs and deep coral reefs with populations of gorgonians, black 
corals, sponges, and associated fish and mobile invertebrates.

g. Bright Bank, Depth Range 112ft-384ft

    Bright Bank previously harbored a coral reef on the very 
shallowest portions of the bank, which sustained extensive damage 
from salvage and mining activities employing dynamite for excavation 
activities. The cap is now considered a coral community, and in 
spite of these impacts, nine species of shallow water scleractinian 
corals survive, along with two deeper water species. The feature 
also harbors extensive coralline algae reefs, providing habitat for 
populations of gorgonians, black corals, sponges, and associated 
fish and mobile invertebrates.

h. Geyer Bank, Depth Range 128ft-722ft

    Geyer Bank is a broad, relatively flat fault-bounded structure 
situated on an active salt diaper. This feature supports a coral 
community, as well as extensive coralline algae reefs and fields of 
algal nodules including dense fields of macro-algae, black corals, 
gorgonians, sponges, and associated fish and mobile invertebrates. 
Seasonal spawning aggregations of fish are associated with this 
bank, including enormous numbers of reef butterflyfish.

i. Elvers Bank, Depth Range 213ft-686ft

    Two discreet polygons have been developed to protect portions of 
Elvers Bank: A larger polygon encompassing 4.43 square miles on the 
south side of the feature, and a small polygon, encompassing 0.19 
square miles on the north side of the feature. The shallow areas of 
the bank feature coralline algae reefs and algal nodule fields, and 
the deeper areas in the southern polygon harbor large deep reef 
outcroppings, both providing habitat for black corals, gorgonians, 
sponges, and associated fish and mobile invertebrates. The deep 
reefs also harbor glass sponge fields, a feature not documented in 
any other areas of the sanctuary, as well as a previously 
undescribed species of black coral.

j. McGrail Bank, Depth Range 144ft-512ft

    Two discreet polygons have been developed to protect portions of 
McGrail Bank: A larger claw shaped polygon reaching from northwest 
to southeast, encompassing 4.54 square miles, and a smaller polygon, 
encompassing 0.17 square miles, situated on the southeast of the 
feature that wraps around a conical shaped mound. This bank features 
unique areas of coral reefs dominated by large colonies of the 
blushing star coral, Stephanocoenia intersepta, with 28% live coral 
cover in discrete areas (no other known coral reef is dominated by 
this species). Pinnacles varying in diameter from ~80 to 395 feet 
(24-120 m) and as tall as ~25 feet (8 m) are found on the southwest 
rim of the main feature, along east- and southeast-trending scarps 
leading away from the bank and in concentric fields to the south and 
southeast of the bank. A significant portion of the depth zone 
between 145 and 170 feet is dominated by coral colonies up to 5 feet 
tall, covering an area of approximately 37 acres. At least 14 
species of stony corals have been recorded. Deeper portions of this 
site harbor mesophotic coral habitat for deep coral, coralline algae 
reefs, and fields of algal nodules. Dense populations of black 
corals, gorgonians, macro-algae fields, and associated fish and 
mobile invertebrates are present.

k. Sonnier Bank, Depth Range 62ft-210ft

    Sonnier Bank consists of a series of isolated clusters of 
pinnacles comprised of uplifted siltstone and claystone, that rise 
mostly around the perimeter of a single, roughly circular ring 1.9 
miles (3.2km) in diameter. Two peaks are accessible and popular with 
recreational scuba divers. The peaks are dominated by coral 
communities featuring fire coral, sponges, and algae. The deeper 
portions of the feature are fairly heavily silted, but provide 
habitat for black corals, gorgonians, and associated fish and mobile 
invertebrates.

l. Bouma Bank, Depth Range 187ft-322ft

    Bouma Bank is dominated by coralline algae reefs and algal 
nodule fields, providing habitat for populations of black corals, 
gorgonians, algae, branching stony coral, clusters of cup coral, and 
associated fish and mobile invertebrates.

m. Rezak Bank, Depth Range 197ft-430ft

    Rezak Bank is dominated by coralline algae reefs and extensive 
algal nodule fields, providing habitat for populations of black 
corals, gorgonians, algae, and associated fish and mobile 
invertebrates.

n. Sidner Bank, Depth Range 190ft-420ft

    Dominated by coralline algae reefs and extensive algal nodule 
fields providing habitat for populations of black corals, 
gorgonians, algae, sponges, and associated fish and mobile 
invertebrates.

o. Alderdice Bank, Depth Range 200ft-322ft

    This feature includes spectacular basalt outcrops of Late 
Cretaceous origin

[[Page 4960]]

(approximately 77 million years old) representing the oldest rock 
exposed on the continental shelf offshore of Louisiana and Texas. 
The outcrops at Alderdice Bank bear diverse, extremely dense 
assemblages of gorgonians and black corals, sponges, and swarms of 
reef fish. Mesophotic coralline algae reef habitats below the 
spires, silted over in areas, provide habitat for dense populations 
of black corals, gorgonians, sponges, branching stony corals, fields 
of macro-algae, and associated fish and mobile invertebrates.

p. Parker Bank, Depth Range 187ft-387ft

    Two discreet polygons have been developed to protect portions of 
Parker Bank. A larger polygon bounding the central portion of the 
features, encompassing 6.82 square miles, and a smaller polygon to 
the east, encompassing 0.14 square miles. These boundaries protect 
the shallowest portions of the bank, which harbor coralline algae 
reefs and algal nodule fields and support populations of plating 
stony corals, black corals, gorgonians, sponges, macro-algae, and 
associated fish and mobile invertebrates.

Article IV--Scope of Regulations

Section 1. Activities Subject to Regulation

    The following activities are subject to regulation, including 
prohibition, to the extent necessary and reasonable to ensure the 
protection and management of the conservation, recreational, 
ecological, historical, research, educational and esthetic resources 
and qualities of the area:
    a. Anchoring or otherwise mooring within the Sanctuary;
    b. Discharging or depositing, from within the boundaries of the 
Sanctuary, any material or other matter;
    c. Discharging or depositing, from beyond the boundaries of the 
Sanctuary, any material or other matter;
    d. Drilling into, dredging or otherwise altering the seabed of 
the Sanctuary; or constructing, placing or abandoning any structure, 
material or other matter on the seabed of the Sanctuary;
    e. Exploring for, developing or producing oil, gas or minerals 
within the Sanctuary;
    f. Taking, removing, catching, collecting, harvesting, feeding, 
injuring, destroying or causing the loss of, or attempting to take, 
remove, catch, collect, harvest, feed, injure, destroy or cause the 
loss of, a Sanctuary resource;
    g. Possessing within the Sanctuary a Sanctuary resource or any 
other resource, regardless of where taken, removed, caught, 
collected or harvested, that, if it had been found within the 
Sanctuary, would be a Sanctuary resource.
    h. Possessing or using within the Sanctuary any fishing gear, 
device, equipment or other apparatus.
    i. Possessing or using airguns or explosives or releasing 
electrical charges within the Sanctuary.
    j. Interfering with, obstructing, delaying or preventing an 
investigation, search, seizure or disposition of seized property in 
connection with enforcement of the Act or any regulation or permit 
issued under the Act.

Section 2. Consistency With International Law

    Any regulation of activities listed in Section 1 of this Article 
will be applied and enforced as mandated by 16 U.S.C. 1435(a).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Based on the legislative history of the NMSA, NOAA has long 
interpreted the text of 16 U.S.C. 1435(a) as encompassing 
international law, including customary international law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 3. Emergency Regulations

    Where necessary to prevent or minimize the destruction of, loss 
of, or injury to a Sanctuary resource or quality, or minimize the 
imminent risk of such destruction, loss or injury, any and all 
activities, including those not listed in section 1 of this Article, 
are subject to immediate temporary regulation, including 
prohibition.

Article V--Effect on Other Regulations, Leases, Permits, Licenses, and 
Rights

Section 1. Fishing Regulations, Licenses, and Permits

    The regulation of fishing is authorized under Article IV. All 
regulatory programs pertaining to fishing, including fishery 
management plans promulgated under the Magnuson Fishery Conservation 
and Management Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq., shall remain in effect. 
Where a valid regulation promulgated under these programs conflicts 
with a Sanctuary regulation, the regulation deemed by the Secretary 
of Commerce or designee as more protective of Sanctuary resources 
and qualities shall govern.

Section 2. Other Licenses, Regulations, and Permits

    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 Secretary of 
Commerce or designee as more protective of Sanctuary resources and 
qualities shall govern.
    Pursuant to section 304(c)(1) of the Act, 16 U.S.C. 1434(c)(1), 
no valid lease, permit, license, approval, or other authorization 
issued by any Federal authority of competent jurisdiction, or any 
valid right of subsistence use or access, may be terminated by the 
Secretary of Commerce or designee as a result of this designation or 
as a result of any Sanctuary regulation if such authorization or 
right was in existence on the effective date of this designation. 
However, the Secretary of Commerce or designee may regulate the 
exercise of such authorization or right consistent with the purposes 
for which the Sanctuary is designated.
    Accordingly, the prohibitions set forth in the Sanctuary 
regulations shall not apply to any activity authorized by any valid 
lease, permit, license, approval, or other authorization in 
existence on the effective date of Sanctuary designation and issued 
by any Federal authority of competent jurisdiction, or by any valid 
right of subsistence use or access in existence on the effective 
date of Sanctuary designation, provided that the holder of such 
authorization or right complies with Sanctuary regulations regarding 
the certification of such authorizations and rights (e.g., notifies 
the Secretary or designee of the existence of, requests 
certification of, and provides requested information regarding such 
authorization or right) and complies with any terms and conditions 
on the exercise of such authorization or right imposed as a 
condition of certification by the Secretary or designee as he or she 
deems necessary to achieve the purposes for which the Sanctuary was 
designated.
    Pending final agency action on the certification request, such 
holder may exercise such authorization or right without being in 
violation of any prohibitions set forth in the Sanctuary 
regulations, provided the holder is in compliance with Sanctuary 
regulations regarding certifications.
    The prohibitions set forth in the Sanctuary regulations shall 
not apply to any activity conducted in accordance with the scope, 
purpose, terms, and conditions of the National Marine Sanctuary 
permit issued by the Secretary or designee in accordance with the 
Sanctuary regulations. Such permits may only be issued if the 
Secretary or designee finds that the activity for which the permit 
is applied 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.
    The prohibitions set forth in the sanctuary regulations shall 
not apply to any activity conducted in accordance with the scope, 
purpose, terms, and conditions of a Special Use permit issued by the 
Secretary or designee in accordance with section 310 of the Act. 
However, in areas where sanctuary regulations prohibit oil, gas, or 
mineral exploration, development or production, the Secretary or 
designee may in no event, permit or otherwise, approve such 
activities in that area. Any leases, licenses, permits, approvals, 
or other authorizations issued after the effective date of 
designation authorizing the exploration or production of oil, gas, 
or minerals in that area shall be invalid.

Section 3. Department of Defense Activities

    The prohibitions in Sec.  922.122(a)(2) through (11) do not 
apply to activities being carried out by the Department of Defense 
as of the effective date of designation. Such activities shall be 
carried out in a manner that minimizes any adverse impact on 
Sanctuary resources and qualities. The prohibitions in Sec.  
922.122(a)(2) through (11) do not apply to any new activities 
carried out by the Department of Defense that do not have the 
potential for any significant adverse impact on Sanctuary resources 
and 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 impact on 
Sanctuary resources and qualities may be exempted from the 
prohibitions in Sec.  922.122(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

[[Page 4961]]

carried out in a manner that minimizes any adverse impact on 
Sanctuary resources and qualities. 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.

Article VI--Alterations to This Designation

    The terms of designation may be modified only by the same 
procedures by which the original designation is made, including 
public hearings; consultation with any appropriate Federal, State, 
regional and local agencies; review by the appropriate Congressional 
committees; and approval by the Secretary of Commerce or designee.

[FR Doc. 2021-00887 Filed 1-15-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-NK-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>