Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4937 

1https://flowergarden.noaa.gov/management/ 

2012mgmtplan.html. 

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 fgbexpansion@noaa.gov. 

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. 

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. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
4938 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

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. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4939 

2https://flowergarden.noaa.gov/management/ 

expansionnpr.html. 

3https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=NOAANOS-2016-0059. 

4https://nmsflowergarden.blob.core.windows.net/ 

flowergarden-prod/media/archive/doc/expansion/ 

deissupplementalinforeport.pdf. 

5https://www.regulations.gov/ 

docketBrowser?rpp=25&so=DESC&sb=comment

DueDate&po=0&D=NOAA-NOS-2019-0033. 

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 multibank complexes. No significant adverse 

impacts to the human environment were 

identified under any alternative 

considered in the DEIS. 

In June 2016, NOAA opened a public 

comment period on the DEIS for sixtynine (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). 

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. 

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 multipolygons), 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®. 

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. 

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. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
4940 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

6https://flowergarden.noaa.gov/management/ 

sanctuaryexpansion.html. 

7https://flowergarden.noaa.gov/management/ 

2012mgmtplan.html. 

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

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 

§ 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. 

3. Department of Defense Activities 

NOAA’s decision to amend the 

effective date in § 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 § 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. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
4942 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4943 

8https://oceanacidification.noaa.gov/Home.aspx. 

9https://www.noaa.gov/climate. 

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 longterm monitoring programs. 

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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
4944 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

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 bottomdragging 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, handheld 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 peerreviewed 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 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 fisherytargeted 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
4946 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

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. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4947 

10https://www.bsee.gov/notices-to-lessees-ntl/ 

notices-to-lessees/ntl-2009-g39-biologicallysensitive-underwater-features. 

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. 

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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
4948 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

11https://

nmsflowergarden.blob.core.windows.net/ 

flowergarden-prod/media/archive/doc/expansion/ 

boemenergyanalysis.pdf. 

12https://www.boem.gov/oil-gas-energy/leasesale-information. 

13https://

nmsflowergarden.blob.core.windows.net/ 

flowergarden-prod/media/archive/doc/expansion/ 

boemenergyanalysis.pdf. 

14https://crrc.unh.edu/sites/crrc.unh.edu/files/ 

nrpt_oil_spill_response_impacting_fgbnms_tx_

report.pdf. 

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. 

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

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 shallowwater 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

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

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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4949 

15https://flowergarden.noaa.gov/visiting/ 

tripprep.html. 

16https://flowergarden.noaa.gov/visiting/ 

reefetiquette.html. 

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

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. 

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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
4950 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

addressing threats to MDBC through 

management activities. 

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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
4952 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

18https://flowergarden.noaa.gov/management/ 

sanctuaryexpansion.html. 

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. 

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, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 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 

■ 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 

■ 2. Revise § 922.120 to read as follows: 

§ 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. 

■ 3. In § 922.121, revise the term ‘‘Noactivity zone’’ to read as follows: 

§ 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
4954 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

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. 

■ 4. Revise § 922.122(e)(1) to read as 

follows: 

§ 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. 

* * * * * 

■ 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4955 

Point ID No. Polygon ID 

No. Bank(s) Latitude Longitude 

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 Bank ................................................................. 27.92554 ¥93.40593 

2 ..................... 6 ..................... Rankin Bank & 28—Fathom Bank ................................................................. 27.92039 ¥93.41021 

3 ..................... 6 ..................... Rankin Bank & 28—Fathom Bank ................................................................. 27.92035 ¥93.42474 

4 ..................... 6 ..................... Rankin Bank & 28—Fathom Bank ................................................................. 27.91387 ¥93.43165 

5 ..................... 6 ..................... Rankin Bank & 28—Fathom Bank ................................................................. 27.90829 ¥93.42234 

6 ..................... 6 ..................... Rankin Bank & 28—Fathom Bank ................................................................. 27.90641 ¥93.42535 

7 ..................... 6 ..................... Rankin Bank & 28—Fathom Bank ................................................................. 27.90489 ¥93.44219 

8 ..................... 6 ..................... Rankin Bank & 28—Fathom Bank ................................................................. 27.89549 ¥93.44396 

9 ..................... 6 ..................... Rankin Bank & 28—Fathom Bank ................................................................. 27.88892 ¥93.43403 

10 ................... 6 ..................... Rankin Bank & 28—Fathom Bank ................................................................. 27.88072 ¥93.42805 

11 ................... 6 ..................... Rankin Bank & 28—Fathom Bank ................................................................. 27.87676 ¥93.42787 

12 ................... 6 ..................... Rankin Bank & 28—Fathom Bank ................................................................. 27.88449 ¥93.44458 

13 ................... 6 ..................... Rankin Bank & 28—Fathom Bank ................................................................. 27.88803 ¥93.45159 

14 ................... 6 ..................... Rankin Bank & 28—Fathom Bank ................................................................. 27.88794 ¥93.45905 

15 ................... 6 ..................... Rankin Bank & 28—Fathom Bank ................................................................. 27.89234 ¥93.46410 

16 ................... 6 ..................... Rankin Bank & 28—Fathom Bank ................................................................. 27.89971 ¥93.45571 

17 ................... 6 ..................... Rankin Bank & 28—Fathom Bank ................................................................. 27.90910 ¥93.45343 

18 ................... 6 ..................... Rankin Bank & 28—Fathom Bank ................................................................. 27.92847 ¥93.45335 

19 ................... 6 ..................... Rankin Bank & 28—Fathom Bank ................................................................. 27.93407 ¥93.44743 

20 ................... 6 ..................... Rankin Bank & 28—Fathom Bank ................................................................. 27.93599 ¥93.44215 

21 ................... 6 ..................... Rankin Bank & 28—Fathom Bank ................................................................. 27.92554 ¥93.40593 

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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
4956 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

Point ID No. Polygon ID 

No. Bank(s) Latitude Longitude 

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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4957 

Point ID No. Polygon ID 

No. Bank(s) Latitude Longitude 

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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
4958 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

■ 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, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 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 conicalshaped 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 faultbounded 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 southeasttrending 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
4960 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

1Based 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. 

(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

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 § 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 

§ 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 § 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 19, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 4961 

1The modifications included changes to the 

required warning label content and a revised test 

method to address an omission in the voluntary 

standard for toy mobiles attached to swings. 

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 

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY 

COMMISSION 

16 CFR Part 1223 

[Docket No. CPSC–2013–0025] 

Revisions to Safety Standard for Infant 

Swings 

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: In November 2012, the U.S. 

Consumer Product Safety Commission 

(CPSC) published a consumer product 

safety standard for infant swings under 

section 104 of the Consumer Product 

Safety Improvement Act of 2008 

(CPSIA). The standard incorporated by 

reference the ASTM voluntary standard 

that was in effect for infant swings at the 

time. The CPSIA sets forth a process for 

updating mandatory standards for 

durable infant or toddler products that 

are based on a voluntary standard, when 

a voluntary standards organization 

revises the standard. Consistent with the 

CPSIA update process, the Commission 

issued a direct final rule in October 

2013, to revise the incorporation by 

reference for the mandatory swings 

standard, to reflect ASTM’S revised 

voluntary standard. Since 2013, ASTM 

has revised the voluntary standard for 

infant swings three times. This direct 

final rule updates the mandatory 

standard for infant swings to 

incorporate by reference ASTM’s 2020 

version of the voluntary standard. 

DATES: The rule is effective on April 3, 

2021, unless CPSC receives a significant 

adverse comment by February 18, 2021. 

If CPSC receives such a comment, it will 

publish a notice in the Federal Register, 

withdrawing this direct final rule before 

its effective date. The incorporation by 

reference of the publication listed in 

this rule is approved by the Director of 

the Federal Register as of April 3, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: You can submit comments, 

identified by Docket No. CPSC–2013– 

0025, by any of the following methods: 

Electronic Submissions: Submit 

electronic comments to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal at: https://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

CPSC does not accept comments 

submitted by electronic mail (email), 

except through https://

www.regulations.gov. CPSC encourages 

you to submit electronic comments by 

using the Federal eRulemaking Portal, 

as described above. 

Mail/hand delivery/courier Written 

Submissions: Submit comments by 

mail/hand delivery/courier to: Division 

of the Secretariat, Consumer Product 

Safety Commission, Room 820, 4330 

East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 

20814; telephone: (301) 504–7479. 

Alternatively, as a temporary option 

during the COVID–19 pandemic, you 

may email such submissions to: cpscos@cpsc.gov. 

Instructions: All submissions must 

include the agency name and docket 

number for this notice. CPSC may post 

all comments without change, including 

any personal identifiers, contact 

information, or other personal 

information provided, to: https://

www.regulations.gov. Do not submit 

electronically: Confidential business 

information, trade secret information, or 

other sensitive or protected information 

that you do not want to be available to 

the public. If you wish to submit such 

information, please submit it according 

to the instructions for mail/hand 

delivery/courier written submissions. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, go to: https://

www.regulations.gov, and insert the 

docket number, CPSC–2013–0025, into 

the ‘‘Search’’ box, and follow the 

prompts. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Keysha Walker, Compliance Officer, 

U.S. Consumer Product Safety 

Commission, 4330 East West Highway, 

Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone (301) 

504–6820; email: kwalker@cpsc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Background 

1. Statutory Authority 

Section 104(b)(1) of the CPSIA 

requires the Commission to assess the 

effectiveness of voluntary standards for 

durable infant or toddler products and 

adopt mandatory standards for these 

products. 15 U.S.C. 2056a(b)(1). The 

mandatory standard must be 

‘‘substantially the same as’’ the 

voluntary standard, or may be ‘‘more 

stringent than’’ the voluntary standard, 

if the Commission determines that more 

stringent requirements would further 

reduce the risk of injury associated with 

the product. Id. 

Section 104(b)(4)(B) of the CPSIA 

specifies the process for when a 

voluntary standards organization revises 

a standard that the Commission 

incorporated by reference under section 

104(b)(1). First, the voluntary standards 

organization must notify the 

Commission of the revision. Once the 

Commission receives this notification, 

the Commission may reject or accept the 

revised standard. The Commission may 

reject the revised standard by notifying 

the voluntary standards organization 

that it has determined that the revised 

standard does not improve the safety of 

the consumer product and that it is 

retaining the existing standard. When 

rejecting a revision, the Commission 

must notify the voluntary standards 

organization of this determination 

within 90 days of receiving notice of the 

revision. If the Commission does not 

take this action to reject the revised 

standard, the revised voluntary standard 

will be considered a consumer product 

safety standard issued under section 9 

of the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 

U.S.C. 2058), effective 180 days after the 

Commission received notification of the 

revision (or a later date specified by the 

Commission in the Federal Register). 15 

U.S.C. 2056a(b)(4)(B). 

2. Safety Standard for Infant Swings 

Under section 104(b)(1) of the CPSIA, 

the Commission adopted a mandatory 

rule for infant swings, codified in 16 

CFR part 1223. The rule incorporated by 

reference ASTM F2088–12a, Standard 

Consumer Safety Specification for 

Infant Swings, with modifications to the 

labeling and test method requirements.1

77 FR 66703 (Nov. 7, 2012). At the time 

the Commission published the final 

rule, ASTM F2088–12a was the current 

version of the voluntary standard. 

In April 2013, ASTM notified CPSC 

that it had issued a revised standard for 

infant swings, ASTM F2088–13. In 

accordance with the procedures set out 

in section 104(b)(4)(B) of the CPSIA, the 

revised standard became the new 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES