Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 118 / Wednesday, June 23, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 32737 

(f) Compliance 

Comply with this AD within the 

compliance times specified, unless already 

done. 

(g) Maintenance or Inspection Program 

Revision 

Within 30 days after the effective date of 

this AD, revise the existing maintenance or 

inspection program, as applicable, to 

incorporate the CMR item information 

identified in figure 1 to paragraph (g) of this 

AD. For airplanes that have exceeded the 

CMR interval, in total flight hours (FHs), for 

a required CMR item, the associated task 

must be done before further flight after 

revision of the maintenance or inspection 

program. 

Note 1 to paragraph (g): The CMR tasks 

and intervals specified in figure 1 to 

paragraph (g) of this AD correspond to the 

items identified in Boeing Certification 

Maintenance Requirements Document 

D626A011–9–03, dated July 2020. The 

information in both sources is identical. 

(h) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(1) The Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, 

FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs 

for this AD, if requested using the procedures 

found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 

14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your 

principal inspector or responsible Flight 

Standards Office, as appropriate. If sending 

information directly to the manager of the 

certification office, send it to the attention of 

the person identified in Related Information. 

Information may be emailed to: 9-ANMSeattle-ACO-AMOC-Requests@faa.gov. 

(2) Before using any approved AMOC, 

notify your appropriate principal inspector, 

or lacking a principal inspector, the manager 

of the responsible Flight Standards Office. 

(i) Related Information 

For more information about this AD, 

contact Ken Fairhurst, Manager, Systems and 

Equipment Section, FAA, Seattle ACO 

Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, 

WA 98198; phone and fax: 206–231–3500; 

email: 9-FAA-SACO-AD-Inquiry@faa.gov. 

(j) Material Incorporated by Reference 

None. 

Issued on June 9, 2021. 

Ross Landes, 

Deputy Director for Regulatory Operations, 

Compliance & Airworthiness Division, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2021–13458 Filed 6–21–21; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

15 CFR Part 922 

[Docket No. 210608–0125] 

RIN 0648–BG01 

Wisconsin Shipwreck Coast National 

Marine Sanctuary Designation; Final 

Regulations 

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 designation of the Wisconsin 

Shipwreck Coast National Marine 

Sanctuary (WSCNMS). The 

approximately 962 square-mile area 

encompasses a portion of the waters and 

submerged lands of Lake Michigan 

adjacent to Ozaukee, Sheboygan, 

Manitowoc, and Kewaunee Counties. 

The area includes a nationally 

significant collection of underwater 

cultural resources, including 36 known 

shipwrecks and about 59 suspected 

shipwrecks. Well preserved by Lake 

Michigan’s cold, fresh water, the 

shipwrecks in the WSCNMS possess 

exceptional historical, archaeological 

and recreational value. NOAA and the 

State of Wisconsin will co-manage 

WSCNMS. 

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 federal rulemaking is 

published, unless the Governor of the 

State of Wisconsin certifies to the 

Secretary of Commerce during that same 

review period that the designation or 

any of its terms is unacceptable, in 

which case the designation or any 

unacceptable term shall not take effect. 

The public can track days on 

Congressional session at the following 

website: https://www.congress.gov/daysin-session. NOAA will publish an 

announcement of the effective date of 

the final regulations in the Federal 

Register. 

NOAA is staying the effective date of 

§ 922.213(a)(2), which prohibits 

grappling into or anchoring on 

shipwreck sites, until October 1, 2023. 

The purpose of this stay is detailed in 

Section II of this final rule. 

ADDRESSES: Copies of the final 

environmental impact statement and 

final management plan (FEIS/FMP) 

described in this rule and the record of 

decision (ROD) are available upon 

request to Wisconsin Shipwreck Coast 

National Marine Sanctuary, One 

University Drive, Sheboygan, WI 53081, 

Attn: Russ Green, Regional Coordinator. 

The FEIS/FMP and Record of Decision 

may be viewed and downloaded at 

https://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/wisconsin/. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Russ 

Green, Regional Coordinator, Office of 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULESER23JN21.020</GPH>

Figure 1 to paragraph (g) - CMR items 

CMR item Related MRBR Task CMR Applicability Task description number item number interval APL ENG 

Operationally check (BITE check) the digital 

22-CMR-01 22-020-00 OPC 6,000 FH ALL ALL flight control system (DFCS) speed trim/stab 

(MPD number) trim discretes and aileron/elevator actuator 

availability. 

22-030-00 Operationally check the stabilizer trim enable 

22-CMR-02 (MPD number) OPC 41,000 FH ALL ALL ground path and autopilot arm cutout switch -

S272 Pole 2. 

27-117-00 Operationally check the primary and 

27-CMR-09 (MPD number) OPC 12,000 FH ALL ALL secondary aisle stand stabilizer trim cutout 

switches. 
32738 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 118 / Wednesday, June 23, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

National Marine Sanctuaries at 920– 

459–4425, russ.green@noaa.gov, or 

Wisconsin Shipwreck Coast National 

Marine Sanctuary, One University 

Drive, Sheboygan, WI 53081, Attn: Russ 

Green, Regional Coordinator. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background 

The National Marine Sanctuaries Act 

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

authorizes the Secretary of Commerce 

(Secretary) to designate and protect as 

national marine sanctuaries areas of the 

marine or Great Lakes 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 has been delegated by the 

Secretary to the Office of National 

Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS) within the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA). The primary 

objective of the NMSA is to protect the 

sanctuary system’s biological and 

cultural resources, such as marine 

ecosystem, marine animals, historic 

shipwrecks, and archaeological sites. 

A. Wisconsin Shipwreck Coast National 

Marine Sanctuary 

The approximately 962 square-mile 

area designated as the Wisconsin 

Shipwreck Coast National Marine 

Sanctuary (WSCNMS) encompasses a 

portion of the waters and submerged 

lands of Lake Michigan adjacent to 

Ozaukee, Sheboygan, Manitowoc, and 

Kewaunee Counties. Principal cities in 

this area include Port Washington, 

Sheboygan, Manitowoc, and Two 

Rivers. The boundary includes 

approximately 82 miles of shoreline and 

extends approximately 7 to 16 miles 

from the shoreline, and is entirely 

located within Wisconsin state waters. 

The area includes a nationally 

significant collection of underwater 

cultural resources, including 36 known 

shipwrecks and approximately 59 

suspected shipwrecks. The historic 

shipwrecks in the sanctuary are 

representative of the vessels that sailed 

and steamed on Lake Michigan during 

the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, 

carrying grain and raw materials east 

and coal, manufactured goods, and 

people west. During this period 

entrepreneurs and shipbuilders on the 

Great Lakes launched tens of thousands 

of ships of many different designs. 

Sailing schooners, grand palace 

steamers, revolutionary propeller-driven 

passenger ships, and industrial bulk 

carriers transported materials that were 

essential to America’s business and 

industry. In the process they brought 

hundreds of thousands of people to the 

Midwest and made possible the 

dramatic growth of the region’s farms, 

cities, and industries. The Midwest, and 

indeed the American Nation, could not 

have developed with such speed and 

with such vast economic and social 

consequences without the Great Lakes. 

Twenty-one of the 36 shipwreck sites in 

the sanctuary are listed on the National 

Register of Historic Places. Many of the 

shipwrecks retain an unusual degree of 

archeological and architectural integrity, 

with several vessels nearly intact. Well 

preserved by Lake Michigan’s cold, 

fresh water, the shipwrecks in the 

WSCNMS possess exceptional 

historical, archaeological and 

recreational value. Additional 

underwater cultural resources, such as 

submerged aircraft, docks, piers, and 

isolated artifacts also exist, as does the 

potential for prehistoric (pre-contact) 

sites and artifacts. 

B. Need for Action 

Establishing a national marine 

sanctuary in Wisconsin waters will 

complement and supplement existing 

state-led preservation efforts, research 

programs, and public outreach 

initiatives. Threats to the nationally 

significant underwater cultural 

resources in the area include both 

natural processes and human activities. 

In some cases human activities can 

threaten the long term sustainability of 

historic shipwrecks and other 

underwater cultural resources, and 

negatively impact their recreational and 

archaeological value. These negative 

impacts include anchor damage from 

visiting dive boats, damage from poorly 

attached mooring lines, looting of 

artifacts, movement of artifacts within a 

shipwreck site, entanglements of 

remotely-operated vehicle tethers, and 

entanglements of fishing gear. 

Additional threats to the national 

marine sanctuary’s resources include 

human-introduced invasive mussels and 

the human disturbance and natural 

deterioration also threaten known and 

undiscovered sanctuary resources. 

Future discoveries may include newly 

uncovered shipwrecks in shallow, 

sandy lake bottom, as well as yet-to-bediscovered intact shipwrecks the lie in 

deeper areas. 

Consistent with the community-based 

sanctuary nomination (described 

below), the national marine sanctuary 

will also: (a) Build on the 30-year 

investment the citizens of Wisconsin 

have made in the identification, 

interpretation, and preservation of 

shipwrecks and other maritime 

resources; (b) build on state and local 

tourism initiatives within the many 

communities that have embraced their 

centuries-long maritime relationship 

with Lake Michigan, the Great Lakes 

region, and the nation; (c) enhance the 

existing state management program; and 

(d) provide access to NOAA’s extended 

network of scientific expertise and 

technological resources, increase 

research efforts, and provide an 

umbrella for the coordination of these 

activities. The national marine 

sanctuary will also enhance existing 

educational initiatives and provide 

additional programming and technology 

for K–12, post-graduate, and the general 

public across the state. 

C. Procedural History 

1. Sanctuary Nomination and Public 

Scoping 

On December 2, 2014, pursuant to 

section 304 of the NMSA and the 

Sanctuary Nomination Process (SNP; 79 

FR 33851), Wisconsin Governor Scott 

Walker, on behalf of the State of 

Wisconsin; the cities of Two Rivers, 

Manitowoc, Sheboygan, and Port 

Washington; and the counties of 

Ozaukee, Sheboygan, and Manitowoc, 

submitted a nomination asking NOAA 

to consider designating this area of 

Wisconsin’s Lake Michigan waters as a 

national marine sanctuary. The State of 

Wisconsin’s selection of this geographic 

area for the nomination drew heavily 

from a 2008 report conducted by the 

Wisconsin History Society and funded 

by the Wisconsin Coastal Management 

Program (Wisconsin’s Historic 

Shipwrecks: An Overview and Analysis 

of Locations for a State/Federal 

Partnership with the National Marine 

Sanctuary Program, 2008, https://

www.wisconsinshipwrecks.org/Files/ 

Wisconsins%20Historic%20

Shipwrecks.pdf). 

The nomination also identified 

opportunities for NOAA to strengthen 

and expand on resource protection, 

education, and research programs by 

State of Wisconsin agencies and in the 

four communities along the Lake 

Michigan coast. NOAA completed its 

review of the nomination, and on 

February 5, 2015, added the area to the 

inventory of nominations that are 

eligible for designation. All nominations 

submitted to NOAA can be found at 

http://www.nominate.noaa.gov/

nominations/. 

On October 7, 2015, NOAA initiated 

the public scoping process with the 

publication of the Notice of Intent (NOI) 

in the Federal Register (80 FR 60631), 

soliciting public input on the proposed 

designation and informing the public of 

the Agency’s intention to prepare a draft 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 118 / Wednesday, June 23, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 32739 

environmental impact statement (DEIS) 

to evaluate alternatives related to the 

proposed designation of WSCNMS 

under the NMSA. That announcement 

initiated a 90-day public comment 

period during which NOAA solicited 

additional input related to the scale and 

scope of the proposed sanctuary, 

including ideas presented in the 

community nomination. The NOI also 

announced NOAA’s intent to fulfill its 

responsibilities under the requirements 

of the National Historic Preservation Act 

(NHPA). 

In November 2015, NOAA hosted 

three public meetings and provided 

additional opportunities for public 

comments through the 

www.regulations.gov web portal and by 

traditional mail. The comment period 

closed January 15, 2016. All comments 

received, through any of these formats, 

were publicly posted on the 

www.regulations.gov web portal (see: 

https://www.regulations.gov/ 

docket?D=NOAA-NOS-2015-0112. The 

public comments submitted during the 

scoping process were used by NOAA in 

preparing the proposed sanctuary 

regulations and the draft environmental 

impact statement and draft management 

plan (DEIS/DMP) associated with the 

proposed sanctuary designation. 

2. Designation Process 

On January 9, 2017, NOAA published 

a notice in the Federal Register 

announcing the proposed designation of 

approximately 1,075 square miles of 

waters and submerged lands of Lake 

Michigan adjacent to Manitowoc, 

Sheboygan, and Ozaukee counties in the 

State of Wisconsin. (82 FR 2269). NOAA 

also provided public notice of the 

availability of the related DEIS/DMP (82 

FR 2269; 82 FR 1733). All three 

documents (proposed rule, DEIS, and 

DMP) were prepared in close 

consultation with the State of 

Wisconsin. NOAA opened an 81-day 

comment period on the proposed rule 

and the DEIS/DMP, which closed on 

March 31, 2017. During the public 

comment period, NOAA held four 

public meetings in the Wisconsin cities 

of Algoma, Manitowoc, Sheboygan, and 

Port Washington. 

All public comments on the proposed 

designation are available at https://

www.regulations.gov/docket?D=NOAANOS-2016-0150. NOAA’s response to 

the public comments are included in 

Appendix B of the FEIS, which was 

made available on June 5, 2020 (85 FR 

34625) and in this document (Section 

IV). 

II. Changes From Proposed to Final 

Regulations 

Based on public comments received 

between January and March 2017, 

internal deliberations, interagency 

consultations, meetings with constituent 

groups, and evaluation of this input 

with the State of Wisconsin, NOAA has 

made the following changes to the 

proposed rule. NOAA has also made 

conforming changes to the FEIS/FMP. 

A. Sanctuary Boundary 

In response to public comments and 

discussions with the state, NOAA chose 

to modify the sanctuary boundary area 

from 1,075 square miles, as originally 

proposed, to 962 square miles. This new 

boundary includes 36 known 

shipwrecks and the potential for 

approximately 59 new sites to be 

discovered. Specific changes include: 

(1) In response to comments raised by 

the commercial shipping industry, 

excluding all federally authorized areas 

(navigation channels) from the 

sanctuary; (2) in response to comments 

raised by shoreline property owners and 

certain industry groups and in 

consultation with the State of 

Wisconsin, using the Low Water Datum 

rather than the Ordinary High Water 

Mark as the sanctuary’s western/ 

shoreline boundary; (3) in consultation 

with the State of Wisconsin, moving the 

southern sanctuary boundary northward 

to approximately 650 feet south of the 

shipwreck Northerner, putting the 

boundary closer to the nominating 

community of Port Washington and 

using a known shipwreck site to 

demarcate the sanctuary boundary, 

rather than a political boundary (i.e., a 

county or city line); and (4) in response 

to public comments, moving the 

northern boundary approximately 1.7 

miles northward to include the 

shipwreck America (in Kewaunee 

County). A detailed description of these 

boundary modifications can be found in 

Chapter 3 of the FEIS. NOAA’s response 

to these and other public comments can 

be found in Appendix B of the FEIS and 

in this document (Section IV). 

B. Sanctuary Name 

In the proposed rule, NOAA referred 

to the proposed sanctuary as the 

‘‘Wisconsin-Lake Michigan National 

Marine Sanctuary (WLMNMS).’’ 

However, based on comments received 

from the public and community 

partners, NOAA changes the sanctuary 

name with this final rule to Wisconsin 

Shipwreck Coast National Marine 

Sanctuary (WSCNMS), which better 

describes the purpose of the sanctuary, 

and, as indicated by local communities, 

provides stronger opportunities for 

marketing and branding. 

C. Definition of ‘‘Sanctuary Resource’’ 

and ‘‘Shipwreck Site’’ 

In response to public comments, 

NOAA revises the definitions of 

‘‘sanctuary resource’’ and ‘‘shipwreck 

site’’ for clarity. In the proposed rule, 

NOAA defined ‘‘sanctuary resource’’ as 

‘‘prehistoric, historic, archaeological, 

and cultural sites and artifacts within 

the sanctuary boundary, including but 

not limited to, all shipwrecks and 

related components.’’ With this final 

rule, NOAA deletes ‘‘including but not 

limited to, all shipwrecks and related 

components’’ and replaces it with 

‘‘including all shipwreck sites,’’ thus 

revising the site-specific definition of 

‘‘sanctuary resources,’’ located in 

section 922.211(a)(1), to now mean ‘‘all 

prehistoric, historic, archaeological, and 

cultural sites and artifacts within the 

sanctuary boundary, including all 

shipwreck sites.’’ NOAA made this 

revision to clarify this sanctuary’s 

emphasis on the protection of 

shipwrecks and shipwreck sites, and to 

better align with state definitions. 

Additionally, the proposed rule 

broadly defined ‘‘shipwreck site’’ to 

mean any sunken watercraft, its 

components, cargo, contents, and 

associated debris field (section 

922.211(a)(2)). However, with this final 

rule, NOAA revises the definition in 

section 922.211(a)(2) for ‘‘shipwreck 

site’’ by adding ‘‘historic’’ to clarify that 

NOAA is focused on historic 

shipwrecks (i.e., not all shipwrecks, but 

those that demonstrate an important 

role in or relationship with maritime 

history). This addition is specifically 

added to respond to concerns about 

defining recent or contemporary sunken 

craft or objects as sanctuary resources. 

For the purposes of this rule, ‘‘historic’’ 

takes its definition from ‘‘historical 

resource’’ located in section 922.3 of the 

National Marine Sanctuary Program 

regulations. 

D. Effective Date of the Regulations on 

Grappling Into or Anchoring on 

Shipwreck Sites 

As explained above in the DATES

section of this document, NOAA 

postpones the effective date for the 

regulation that prohibits grappling into 

or anchoring on shipwreck sites until 

October 1, 2023. The purpose of this 

postponement is to provide NOAA with 

adequate time to develop a shipwreck 

mooring program and plan, begin 

installing mooring buoys, seek input 

from the dive community about the 

mooring buoy plan, and develop best 

practices for accessing shipwrecks when 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
32740 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 118 / Wednesday, June 23, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

mooring buoys are not present. During 

this period, NOAA will also work with 

stakeholders to explore the concept of 

permitting certain prohibited activities 

(e.g., allowing divers to attach mooring 

lines directly to some shipwreck sites). 

All other regulations will become 

effective as described in the DATES

section above. 

III. Summary of All Final Regulations 

for WSCNMS 

With this final rule, NOAA is 

implementing the following site-specific 

regulations for WSCNMS. 

A. Add New Subpart T to Existing 

National Marine Sanctuary Program 

Regulations 

NOAA amends the National Marine 

Sanctuary Program regulations at 15 

CFR part 922 by adding a new subpart 

(subpart T) that contains site-specific 

regulations for the WSCNMS. This 

subpart includes the boundary 

description, contains definitions of 

common terms used in the new subpart, 

provides a framework for comanagement of the sanctuary, identifies 

prohibited activities and exceptions, 

and establishes procedures for 

certification of existing uses, permitting 

otherwise prohibited activities, and 

emergency regulation procedures. 

Several conforming changes are also 

made to the national sanctuary 

regulations as described below. 

B. Sanctuary Name 

The sanctuary name is ‘‘Wisconsin 

Shipwreck Coast National Marine 

Sanctuary (WSCNMS).’’ 

C. Sanctuary Boundary 

NOAA designates a 726 square 

nautical mile (962 square mile) area of 

Lake Michigan waters off Ozaukee, 

Sheboygan, Manitowoc, and Kewaunee 

counties of Wisconsin as WSCNMS. The 

sanctuary’s western/shoreward 

boundary is defined by the Low Water 

Datum as defined by the International 

Great Lakes Datum, 1985 (IGLD 1985) as 

an elevation of 577.5 ft above sea level, 

while the lakeward boundary is drawn 

to include all known shipwrecks 

between the shipwreck America to the 

north and shipwreck Northerner to the 

south. The sanctuary extends 

approximately 16 miles offshore at its 

greatest extent. Within this boundary 

are 36 known shipwrecks, including 21 

on the National Register of Historic 

Places. The harbors and marinas of Two 

Rivers, Manitowoc, Sheboygan, and Port 

Washington are not included in the 

sanctuary boundary, nor are federally 

authorized areas (channels). These are 

channels that have been dredged by U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers adjacent to the 

ports and harbors. The detailed legal 

sanctuary boundary description is 

included in section 922.210 and the 

coordinates are located in 15 CFR part 

922, subpart T, appendix A. 

A map of the area is shown in the 

FEIS on page 4, and can also be found 

at https://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/ 

wisconsin/. 

D. Definitions 

NOAA is including a site-specific 

definition of ‘‘sanctuary resources’’ for 

the WSCNMS to include only the 

underwater cultural resources found in 

this area in accordance with the purpose 

of this designation. The definition does 

not include biological and ecological 

resources of the area. Creating this 

narrow, site-specific definition requires 

NOAA to modify the national definition 

of ‘‘sanctuary resource’’ in the national 

regulations at section 922.3 to add an 

additional sentence that defines the sitespecific definition for WSCNMS at 

section 922.211(a). This is similar to the 

approach taken for other national 

marine sanctuaries, such as Thunder 

Bay National Marine Sanctuary, that do 

not make use of the full national 

‘‘sanctuary resource’’ definition. The 

WSCNMS definition of ‘‘sanctuary 

resources,’’ located in section 

922.211(a)(1), means all prehistoric, 

historic, archaeological, and cultural 

sites and artifacts within the sanctuary 

boundary, including all shipwreck sites. 

The term ‘‘shipwreck site’’ is further 

defined as any historic sunken 

watercraft, its components, cargo, 

contents, and associated debris field. 

This rule also incorporates and adopts 

other common terms defined in the 

existing national regulations at section 

922.3. One of the common terms 

adopted (without modification) is 

‘‘National Marine Sanctuary’’ or 

‘‘Sanctuary,’’ which means an area of 

the marine environment of special 

national significance due to its resource 

or human-use values, which is 

designated as such to ensure its 

conservation and management. 

E. Co-Management of the Sanctuary 

To enhance opportunities and build 

on existing protections, NOAA and the 

State of Wisconsin will collaboratively 

manage the sanctuary. NOAA 

establishes the framework for comanagement at section 922.212 and will 

develop a Memorandum of Agreement 

(MOA) with the state to provide greater 

details of co-management. NOAA and 

the state may develop additional 

agreements as necessary that would 

provide details on the execution of 

sanctuary management, such as 

activities, programs, and permitting 

programs that can also be updated to 

adapt to changing conditions or threats 

to the sanctuary resources. Any 

proposed changes to sanctuary 

regulations or boundaries will be jointly 

coordinated with the state and will be 

subject to public review as mandated by 

the NMSA and other Federal statutes. 

F. Prohibited and Regulated Activities 

1. Injuring Sanctuary Resources 

The regulations for WSCNMS prohibit 

any person from moving, removing, 

recovering, altering, destroying, 

possessing or otherwise injuring, or 

attempting to move, remove, recover, 

alter, destroy, possess or otherwise 

injure a sanctuary resource. This 

prohibition supplements existing 

Wisconsin laws that prohibit damaging 

shipwrecks. Wisconsin State statute 

(Wis. Stat. § 44.47), which has been in 

effect since 1991 and is related to 

removing or damaging shipwrecks, 

currently applies to the area and will 

continue to apply to these resources 

after sanctuary designation. 

2. Grappling Into or Anchoring on a 

Shipwreck Site 

The regulations for WSCNMS prohibit 

the use of grappling into or anchoring 

on shipwreck sites to protect fragile 

shipwrecks within the sanctuary from 

damage. To provide the public adequate 

notice of shipwreck locations, NOAA 

will prepare and make available 

sanctuary maps with known and 

suspected shipwreck sites. Shipwreck 

sites not listed on maps (i.e., new 

discoveries as they occur) are 

considered sanctuary resources and the 

prohibition on anchoring and grappling 

still apply. The final management plan 

includes activities related to surveying 

the sanctuary area and locating 

additional shipwreck sites. As 

appropriate, NOAA will update the 

maps as new shipwreck sites are found. 

Because NOAA seeks to promote 

public access, while also ensuring 

sound resource protection, an initial 

focus of the sanctuary management plan 

will be the installation of permanent 

mooring systems at priority sanctuary 

shipwreck sites. The moorings will 

provide a secure, visible, and 

convenient anchoring point for users, 

and eliminate the need for grappling. 

NOAA intends to publish guidelines on 

best practices for accessing shipwrecks 

when mooring buoys are not present. 

An example of a best practice could 

include instructions on using a 

weighted line and surface float to mark 

a wreck for divers to descend and 

ascend. This weighted line would not be 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 118 / Wednesday, June 23, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 32741 

used as an anchoring line; it would need 

to be continuously tended and removed 

before the dive boat left the area. 

NOAA is postponing the effective 

date for this prohibition for October 1, 

2023. The purpose of this postponement 

is to provide NOAA with adequate time 

to develop a shipwreck mooring 

program and plan, begin installing 

mooring buoys, seek input from the dive 

community about the mooring buoy 

plan, and develop best practices for 

accessing shipwrecks when mooring 

buoys are not present. During this 

period, NOAA will also work with 

stakeholders to explore the concept of 

permitting certain prohibited activities 

(e.g., allowing divers to attach mooring 

lines directly to some shipwreck sites). 

All other regulations would remain in 

effect during this postponement. 

3. Interfering With Investigations 

The regulations for WSCNMS prohibit 

interfering with sanctuary enforcement 

activities. This regulation will assist in 

NOAA’s enforcement of the sanctuary 

regulations and strengthen sanctuary 

management. 

4. Exemption for Emergencies and Law 

Enforcement 

The regulations for WSCNMS exempt 

from the three prohibitions described 

above activities that respond to 

emergencies that threaten lives, 

property, or the environment, or are 

necessary for law enforcement purposes. 

G. Emergency Regulations 

As part of the designation, NOAA will 

have the authority to issue emergency 

regulations for this sanctuary. 

Emergency regulations will be used in 

limited cases and under specific 

conditions when there is an imminent 

risk to sanctuary resources and a 

temporary prohibition would prevent 

the destruction or loss of those 

resources. NOAA will only issue 

emergency regulations that address an 

imminent risk for a fixed amount of 

time for a maximum of 6 months, which 

can be extended a single time for not 

more than an additional six months. 

Emergency regulations will only be 

exempted from notice and comment 

requirements under Administrative 

Procedures Act when the agency ‘‘for 

good cause finds (and incorporates the 

finding and a brief statement of reasons 

therefor in the rules issued) that notice 

and public procedure thereon are 

impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary 

to the public interest.’’ A full 

rulemaking process must be undertaken, 

including a public comment period, to 

consider making an emergency 

regulation permanent. NOAA modifies 

the national regulations at § 922.44 to 

include WSCNMS in the list of 

sanctuaries that have site-specific 

regulations related to emergency 

regulations, and adds detailed sitespecific emergency regulations to the 

WSCNMS regulations at § 922.214. 

H. General Permits, Certifications, 

Authorizations, and Special Use Permits 

1. General Permits 

The regulations for WSCNMS include 

the authority for NOAA to issue permits 

to allow certain activities that would 

otherwise violate the prohibitions listed 

and described above. Similar to other 

national marine sanctuaries, NOAA 

considers these permits for the purposes 

of education, research, or management. 

To address the above additions to the 

ONMS general permit authority for 

WSCNMS, NOAA is amending 

regulatory text in the program-wide 

regulations in part 922, subpart E, to 

add references to subpart T, as 

appropriate. NOAA would also add a 

new § 922.215 in subpart T titled 

‘‘Permit procedures and review criteria’’ 

that would address site-specific permit 

procedures for WSCNMS. 

2. Certifications 

The regulations for WSCNMS include 

language at section 922.216 describing 

the process by which NOAA may certify 

pre-existing authorizations or rights 

within the WSCNMS area. Here the term 

pre-existing authorizations or rights 

refers to any leases, permits, licenses, or 

rights of subsistence use or access in 

existence on the date of sanctuary 

designation (see 16 U.S.C. 1434(c); 15 

CFR 922.47). Consistent with this 

definition, WSCNMS regulations at 

section 922.216 states that certification 

is the process by which these preexisting authorizations that violate 

sanctuary prohibitions may be allowed 

to continue, and the sanctuary may 

regulate the exercise of the pre-existing 

authorizations consistent with the 

purposes for which the sanctuary was 

designated. Applications for certifying 

pre-existing authorizations must be 

received by NOAA within 180 days of 

the Federal Register notice announcing 

the effective date of the designation. 

3. Authorizations 

NOAA may also allow an otherwise 

prohibited activity to occur in the 

sanctuary, if such activity is specifically 

authorized by any valid Federal, state, 

or local lease, permit, license, approval, 

or other authorization issued after 

sanctuary designation. Authorization 

authority is intended to streamline 

regulatory requirements by reducing the 

need for multiple permits and would 

apply to all proposed prohibitions at 

§ 922.213. As such, NOAA is amending 

the regulatory text at § 922.49 to add 

reference to subpart T. 

4. Special Use Permits 

NOAA has the authority under the 

NMSA to issue special use permits 

(SUPs) at national marine sanctuaries as 

established by section 310 of the NMSA. 

SUPs can be used to authorize specific 

activities in a sanctuary if such 

authorization is necessary to: (1) 

Establish conditions of access to and use 

of any sanctuary resource; or (2) 

promote public use and understanding 

of a sanctuary resource. The activities 

that qualify for a SUP are set forth in the 

Federal Register (82 FR 42298; 

September 7, 2017). Categories of SUPs 

may be changed or added to through 

public notice and comment. NOAA 

would not apply the SUP to activities in 

place at the time of the WSCNMS 

designation. 

SUP applications are reviewed to 

ensure that the activity is compatible 

with the purposes for which the 

sanctuary is designated and that the 

activities carried out under the SUP be 

conducted in a manner that do not 

destroy, cause the loss of, or injure 

sanctuary resources. NOAA also 

requires SUP permittees to purchase 

and maintain comprehensive general 

liability insurance, or post an equivalent 

bond, against claims arising out of 

activities conducted under the permit. 

The NMSA allows NOAA to assess and 

collect fees for the conduct of any 

activity under a SUP. On November 19, 

2015, NOAA published public notice 

(80 FR 72415) of the methods, formulas 

and rationale for the calculations it will 

use in order to assess fees associated 

with SUPs. The fees collected could be 

used to recover the administrative costs 

of issuing the permit, the cost of 

implementing the permit, monitoring 

costs associated with the conduct of the 

activity, and the fair market value of the 

use of sanctuary resources. 

I. Other Conforming Amendments 

The general regulations in part 922, 

subpart A, and part 922, subpart E, for 

regulations of general applicability are 

amended by this action so that the 

regulations are accurate and up-to-date. 

The following 10 sections are updated 

to reflect the increased number of 

sanctuaries or to add subpart T to the 

list of sanctuaries: 

• Section 922.1 Applicability of 

regulations 

• Section 922.40 Purpose 

• Section 922.41 Boundaries 

• Section 922.42 Allowed activities 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
32742 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 118 / Wednesday, June 23, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

• Section 922.43 Prohibited or 

otherwise regulated activities 

• Section 922.44 Emergency 

regulations 

• Section 922.47 Pre-existing 

authorizations or rights and 

certifications of pre-existing 

authorizations or rights 

• Section 922.48 National Marine 

Sanctuary permits—application 

procedures and issuance criteria 

• Section 922.49 Notification and 

review of applications for leases, 

licenses, permits, approvals, or other 

authorizations to conduct a prohibited 

activity 

• Section 922.50 Appeals of 

administrative action 

J. Terms of Designation 

Section 304(a)(4) of the NMSA 

requires that the terms of designation 

include the geographic area included 

within 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. 

NOAA is establishing terms of 

designation that describe the geographic 

area, resources, and activities as 

described above. NOAA is adding the 

terms of designation language as 

appendix B to the WSCNMS regulations 

at 15 CFR part 922, subpart T. 

Upon further examination, NOAA has 

decided to remove Article V., Section 2 

from the proposed Terms of 

Designation. NOAA proposed this 

provision to incorporate the generally 

prevailing judicial precedent and 

regulatory practice that, to the extent 

two laws appear to conflict (e.g., two 

laws apply to the same activity), the 

courts or the agencies will attempt to 

harmonize them to give effect to both 

laws if possible. See, e.g., Swinomish 

Indian Tribal Cmty. v. BNSF Ry. Co., 

951 F.3d 1142, 1156 (9th Cir. 2020). 

NOAA has, however, determined that 

this proposed provision is not a 

fundamental component of the Terms of 

Designation (e.g., the establishment of 

the sanctuary) or the regulatory scheme 

finalized herein. In the face of any 

potential conflicts of federal laws in the 

waters of the sanctuary, such as where 

a sanctuary prohibition may interfere 

with Federal safety laws, NOAA would 

work with that agency to ensure that the 

purpose of each law is given fullest 

effect. The remaining language in that 

section referencing pre-existing 

authorizations such as a lease, license or 

permit is found in section 304(c) of the 

NMSA, so the removal of the language 

in the Terms of Designation does not 

change NOAA’s authorities. NOAA will 

coordinate with the State of Wisconsin 

regarding any such authorization as 

specified in § 922.212 of these 

regulations regarding co-management of 

the site. 

IV. Response to Comments 

During the January 2017 through 

March 31, 2017, public review comment 

period, NOAA received 566 written 

comments on the DEIS/DMP and 

proposed rule. Approximately 400 

people attended four public meetings 

during the week of March 13, 2017, in 

the Wisconsin towns of Algoma, 

Manitowoc, Sheboygan, and Port 

Washington, with 75 people providing 

verbal comments. Four petitions were 

submitted with public comments: One 

with 163 signatures of individuals 

supporting the Wisconsin sanctuary 

proposal exclusively; one with 128 

businesses supporting both the 

Wisconsin and Maryland (Mallows Bay 

National Marine Sanctuary) sanctuary 

proposals; and two petitions with 51 

total signatures in opposition to the 

Wisconsin sanctuary. 

For the purposes of managing 

responses to public comments, NOAA 

grouped similar comments by theme. 

These themes align with the content of 

the draft proposed rule that identified 

the purposes and needs for a national 

marine sanctuary, and the draft 

management plan that identified the 

proposed non-regulatory programs and 

sanctuary operations. The themes are 

identified below, followed by NOAA’s 

response. 

Positive Impact on Communities 

Through Tourism, Economic 

Development, Education, and Research 

1. Comment: NOAA received many 

comments supporting the opportunity 

for a new sanctuary to promote tourism 

to coastal communities. Commenters 

believe that national exposure and 

increased cooperation among the 

communities will result in increased 

numbers of visitors to the region. 

Response: NOAA agrees that 

Wisconsin Shipwreck Coast National 

Marine Sanctuary (WSCNMS) would 

create positive impacts to tourism. The 

partnerships developed between NOAA, 

the State of Wisconsin, and the 

communities during the nomination and 

designation processes will help in 

achieving this goal. The WSCNMS final 

management plan includes a strategy 

and action plan that supports this goal. 

2. Comment: NOAA received many 

comments supporting educational 

opportunities for a sanctuary to work 

with local museums and school districts 

to engage people in Wisconsin’s 

maritime history and the Great Lakes. 

Response: National marine 

sanctuaries across the system have 

robust education programs. It is a 

priority for NOAA to educate and 

engage people in national marine 

sanctuaries. The final management plan 

includes strategies and action plans to 

develop education programs with state 

and community partners that will 

provide a variety of educational 

experiences. The WSCNMS final 

management plan includes actions that 

support this goal. 

3. Comment: NOAA received many 

comments highlighting the opportunity 

for a new sanctuary to promote 

Wisconsin’s maritime heritage. 

Response: The sanctuary designation 

is an opportunity to partner with the 

State of Wisconsin and communities to 

tell the many stories of centuries of 

exploration, travel, and commerce on 

the Great Lakes. The sanctuary provides 

a platform to share Wisconsin’s stories 

with local, regional, and national 

audiences. The WSCNMS final 

management plan includes actions that 

support this goal. 

4. Comment: NOAA received several 

comments by researchers expressing 

interest in partnering with the sanctuary 

on both archaeological and 

multidisciplinary projects. 

Response: Across the nation, national 

marine sanctuaries partner with 

researchers to explore, document, and 

better understand sanctuary resources. 

NOAA expects to attract and partner 

with a variety of researchers in the 

sanctuary, and the final management 

plan includes actions that support this 

goal. 

Proposed Sanctuary Boundary 

5. Comment: NOAA received many 

comments from lakeshore landowners 

expressing concern about the proposal 

to use the ordinary high water mark 

(OHWM) as the sanctuary’s western/ 

shoreline boundary. The key concerns 

were: (1) That this boundary choice 

would negatively impact riparian rights 

of lakeshore property owners; (2) that 

the proposal would allow public access 

to areas below the OHWM where 

riparian owners currently have 

exclusive access; (3) that using the 

OHWM as the sanctuary’s western 

boundary would impact property values 

because the land would change from 

state to federal ownership; and (4) that, 

more generally, using the OHWM was 

seen as federal overreach and would 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 118 / Wednesday, June 23, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 32743 

result in more ‘‘red tape’’ and 

permitting. 

Response: NOAA’s proposal to 

designate a national marine sanctuary 

recognizes the state’s sovereignty over 

its waters and submerged lands and 

does not change state ownership of 

public bottomlands; that is, no federal 

ownership of Wisconsin public lands is 

created by the sanctuary designation. 

Likewise, NOAA’s proposal to designate 

a national marine sanctuary would not 

change existing riparian rights of the 

property owners of Wisconsin, nor 

would it change state law regarding 

public access to the area in which 

shoreline property owners have 

exclusive access. NOAA proposed the 

OHWM in the draft designation because 

it would be consistent with the state’s 

regulatory boundary. Furthermore, after 

considering public comments about 

using the OHWM as the western/ 

shoreline sanctuary boundary, NOAA is 

now proposing adopting the low water 

datum (LWD) as that boundary. NOAA 

is doing so because the LWD is more 

lakeward than the OHWM, and would 

move the sanctuary boundary ‘‘lower 

down the beach’’ than the OHWM, 

thereby removing much of the beach 

from NOAA jurisdiction and related 

riparian rights concerns. 

Notably, the LWD is set at an 

elevation of 577.5 feet. The lowest 

recorded water level on Lake Michigan 

is 576.02 feet. This effectively places the 

sanctuary boundary nearly at the alltime low water level mark for Lake 

Michigan. Since riparian owners have 

exclusive use of the beach between the 

OHWM and the water’s edge, using the 

LWD effectively places the sanctuary 

boundary at the most lakeward extent of 

this area as practicable. See Section 

3.3.2 in the final environmental impact 

statement for a detailed discussion of 

the difference between OHWM and 

LWD. 

NOAA realizes that proposing using 

the LWD rather than the OHWM differs 

from its original proposal in that it 

leaves a portion of the shoreline (the 

area between the OHWM and LWD) 

outside of sanctuary management; any 

cultural resources found in this area 

would not benefit from sanctuary 

resource protection. NOAA and the 

State of Wisconsin are not currently 

aware of shipwrecks in the sanctuary 

that come up to the OWHM, but 

depending on lake levels, it is possible 

that shipwrecks or parts of shipwrecks 

that are currently buried can become 

unburied. The Wisconsin Historical 

Society has determined that several 

undiscovered shipwrecks may lie in the 

surf zone. If a cultural resource was 

discovered between the OHWM and the 

LWD that resource would still be under 

state jurisdiction because all land from 

the OHWM lakeward are state 

bottomlands. 

6. Comment: Certain industry 

stakeholders commented that NOAA 

should use the low water datum as the 

shoreward boundary of the sanctuary to 

ensure that the current beneficial 

practice of beach nourishment using 

dredged materials is continued. 

Response: NOAA agrees and proposes 

that the LWD should be used as the 

sanctuary’s landward boundary. In 

addition, NOAA recognizes in the FEIS 

several activities important to 

commercial shipping, including beach 

nourishment, and has not proposed 

regulations specifically prohibiting use 

of dredge spoil within the sanctuary. 

Beach nourishment using dredge spoil 

is already regulated by the USACE and 

the State of Wisconsin. NOAA, through 

its co-management arrangement with 

the state and relationship with USACE, 

intends to coordinate a response if a 

particular renourishment project has the 

potential to injure known or suspected 

cultural resources within the sanctuary. 

7. Comment: NOAA received 

comments from industry stakeholders 

stating that certain areas important to 

commercial shipping should be 

excluded from the sanctuary. NOAA 

also received suggested clarifying 

language to be included in the FEIS on 

the topic of dredging, and questions 

about the impact of the designation on 

dredging. 

Response: To ensure compatible use 

with commercial shipping and other 

activities (such as dredging for 

commercial ship traffic), NOAA in the 

DEIS excluded the ports, harbors, and 

marinas of Two Rivers, Manitowoc, 

Sheboygan, and Port Washington from 

the sanctuary boundary. In the FEIS, 

NOAA has also excluded federally 

authorized areas (channels) from the 

sanctuary. 

NOAA also included in Section 

3.4.3.3 of the FEIS additional language, 

as suggested by the USACE, that 

specifies the types of activities 

important to commercial shipping. 

Specifically, ‘‘. . . routine operations 

and maintenance activities such as 

dredging, dredge material placement 

(nearshore/beach nourishment), and 

breakwater maintenance.’’ Although 

NOAA would not regulate these 

activities per se, the sanctuary 

prohibition on injuring a sanctuary 

resource would ensure that these 

activities would not negatively impact 

underwater cultural resources. 

8. Comment: NOAA received several 

comments noting that the water’s edge 

should be used as the sanctuary’s 

western/shoreline boundary. 

Response: NOAA did not consider 

using the water’s edge for a boundary, 

because it would create a dynamic 

‘‘moving’’ sanctuary boundary where 

cultural resources were variously within 

or beyond the sanctuary boundary, 

depending on lake levels at a given 

time. NOAA proposes using the LWD as 

the sanctuary’s western/shoreline 

boundary. See Comment 5 for more 

information. 

9. Comment: NOAA received several 

comments stating that the sanctuary’s 

western/shoreline boundary should be 

consistent with state law. 

Response: As indicated in the DEIS, 

NOAA selected the OHWM as the 

landward boundary as its preferred 

alternative because it was consistent 

with the state’s jurisdiction for 

managing underwater cultural 

resources. However, as indicated above 

in response to Comment 5, NOAA 

proposes to use the LWD as the 

sanctuary’s landward boundary. 

Addressing the public’s concern about 

riparian interests outweighs the benefit 

of an identical shoreline boundary. 

10. Comment: NOAA received several 

comments asking how the establishment 

of the sanctuary would impact the 

findings of the Wisconsin Supreme 

Court case regarding property owner 

rights (Doemel v. Jantz, 1923). 

Response: Sanctuary designation 

would not change the interpretation or 

application of the Wisconsin Supreme 

Court case (Doemel v. Jantz, 1923). 

11. Comment: NOAA received a few 

comments urging use of a different 

boundary, because no shipwrecks come 

up to the OHWM. 

Response: Refer to Comment 5 above. 

This comment is addressed by NOAA 

use of the LWD as the sanctuary’s 

western/shoreline boundary. 

12. Comment: NOAA received many 

comments supporting Boundary 

Alternative B (1,260 square miles, 

includes additional waters off 

Kewaunee County), which was larger 

than NOAA’s preferred alternative in 

the DEIS. 

Response: NOAA’s preferred 

boundary alternative includes one 

shipwreck in Kewaunee County 

(schooner America), but does not 

include additional waters off Kewaunee 

County. America is listed on the 

National Register of Historic Places, 

supporting its inclusion in the sanctuary 

and the aim of protecting nationally 

significant resources. 

13. Comment: NOAA received one 

comment stating that Kewaunee County 

should not be included because a 

diverse group of stakeholders has not 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
32744 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 118 / Wednesday, June 23, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

been involved to ensure there is no 

negative impact to the county. The 

commenter noted it would be better to 

see first how the sanctuary impacts the 

counties in NOAA’s preferred boundary 

alternative. 

Response: Overall, public comments 

from Kewaunee County were in favor of 

including Kewaunee County. 

Additionally, NOAA held one of its 

public comment meetings in Algoma 

(located in Kewaunee County), and any 

member of the public could comment 

via online or mail. Based on an 

evaluation of public comments and 

discussions with the State of Wisconsin, 

NOAA’s preferred boundary includes a 

small portion of Kewaunee County 

waters which contains the county’s only 

known shipwreck (schooner America). 

14. Comment: NOAA received one 

comment stating that no formal 

comprehensive remote sensing surveys 

have been conducted within the 

proposed boundary, which suggests 

more shipwrecks will be found in 

Kewaunee County. Consequently, 

NOAA should consider adding the 

entire county to the sanctuary boundary. 

Response: Based on historical 

research by the Wisconsin Historical 

Society, NOAA agrees that there is high 

potential for new historic sites to be 

discovered in the entirety of waters off 

Kewaunee County. Refer also to 

Comment 12. 

NOAA’s draft environmental impact 

statement published on January 9, 2017, 

includes a clarification that places the 

shipwreck Daniel Lyons in Door County 

rather than Kewaunee County, leaving 

only one known shipwreck in 

Kewaunee County (schooner America). 

This clarification was made by the 

Wisconsin Historical Society when 

more accurate GPS coordinates of the 

shipwreck became available. 

15. Comment: NOAA received several 

comments supporting the addition of 

the waters of Door County to the 

sanctuary, now or in the future. 

Response: Because the addition of 

Door County would have been well 

beyond the geographic scope of the 

originally nominated area, NOAA chose 

not to include it in the final boundary. 

16. Comment: NOAA received several 

comments asking for clarification on 

why a large geographic area was 

required for the protection of 37 

shipwreck sites. In particular, one 

commenter asked why NOAA did not 

propose creating a regulatory area 

around each individual shipwreck. 

Response: Research by the Wisconsin 

Historical Society suggests that as many 

as 59 shipwrecks are yet to be 

discovered in the sanctuary. 

Consequently, NOAA, in consultation 

with the State of Wisconsin, chose to 

propose a management area that would 

include these potential historic sites and 

facilitate resource management as these 

new sites are discovered. This would 

ensure that newly discovered sites are 

protected and managed under sanctuary 

regulations at the time of discovery. 

Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary 

has used this management approach 

successfully. The sanctuary area also 

reflects what the State of Wisconsin put 

forth in its nomination to NOAA. 

17. Comment: NOAA received a few 

comments expressing concern that it 

would expand the boundaries at a later 

time without public input. One 

comment suggested that the boundary 

could be expanded inland via Lake 

Michigan watershed tributaries. 

Response: If NOAA expanded the 

sanctuary’s boundary in the future, 

including via Lake Michigan watershed 

tributaries, that would constitute a 

change in the sanctuary’s terms of 

designation. Under the National Marine 

Sanctuaries Act, a change in the terms 

of designation, including a boundary 

change, would require the same process 

that was undertaken for designation, 

including public notice and comment, 

public hearings, preparation of an 

environmental impact statement, and 

review periods for the governor and 

Congress. These statutory requirements 

also include Section 304(b)(1), which 

provides the governor of Wisconsin 

authority to certify that a term of a 

designation, including a proposed 

boundary expansion, is unacceptable, 

and the expansion of the boundary will 

not take effect in state waters. The State 

of Wisconsin, as a co-manager, would be 

involved in all discussions about 

proposed changes. Additionally, NOAA 

would follow the procedures of the 

Administrative Procedure Act, requiring 

that adequate public notice and 

opportunity for public comment be 

given for new regulations, including 

boundary changes. 

18. Comment: NOAA received a few 

comments stating that the agency did 

not explain why the preferred boundary 

alternative was selected. One comment 

asked if cost was a factor in choosing 

the smaller of the two boundary 

alternatives. 

Response: Chapter 3 of the DEIS and 

FEIS provide details regarding NOAA’s 

analysis of boundary alternatives. Cost 

is not a primary factor in NOAA’s 

selection of a boundary alternative. 

Commercial Shipping (Non-Boundary) 

and Fishing 

19. Comment: NOAA received several 

comments that the prohibition on 

anchoring could be problematic for 

commercial vessels, and that NOAA 

should publish both the known and 

potential locations of shipwreck sites. A 

related comment noted that if the noanchoring prohibition extends to 

undiscovered shipwrecks, shippers 

might not be able to avoid anchoring on 

a shipwreck if they do not know where 

it is, and as such, all locations, known 

or approximated, should be published 

by NOAA in a format accessible and 

useful to all mariners. 

Response: Under the proposed 

regulations, anchoring within the 

sanctuary is not prohibited. However, 

grappling into or anchoring on a 

shipwreck site (sanctuary resource) is 

prohibited. This regulation is narrowly 

worded to protect historic shipwreck 

sites from anchor damage, while still 

allowing anchoring inside the sanctuary 

outside of these discrete areas. The 

prohibition does not apply to any 

activity necessary to respond to an 

emergency threatening life or the 

environment. 

Existing state regulations already 

prohibit damaging historic shipwrecks 

sites within the area proposed as a 

sanctuary. To help vessels avoid 

inadvertently anchoring on known 

shipwrecks sites, NOAA will publish 

maps with coordinates of known and 

estimated shipwreck locations. It should 

be noted that historical research on 

shipwrecks yet to be found (potential/ 

estimated shipwrecks) only 

approximates a potential shipwreck 

location. This information is currently 

available via the UW Sea Grant and 

Wisconsin Historical Society 

maintained website 

www.wisconsinshipwrecks.org. NOAA 

will work with the state to update and 

publish this information and share 

directly with stakeholders such as the 

Lake Carriers’ Association. 

Additionally, NOAA will prioritize its 

sonar-based cultural resource surveys in 

areas where commercial shipping 

vessels are likely to anchor, such as off 

Manitowoc. This will help locate 

cultural resources and provide 

information useful to both the sanctuary 

and commercial shippers. 

20. Comment: NOAA received a 

comment requesting that language be 

added to Section 922.213(b) that not 

only considers emergency situations but 

adds: ‘‘. . . or anchoring to prevent 

unsafe conditions, as determined by the 

vessel’s master and recorded in the 

vessel’s official log book.’’ 

Response: The proposed regulations 

provide for an exemption from the 

prohibitions in unsafe conditions. The 

proposed regulations specify, at 15 CFR 

922.213(b): ‘‘The prohibitions in 

paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 118 / Wednesday, June 23, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 32745 

section do not apply to any activity 

necessary to respond to an emergency 

threatening life, property or the 

environment . . .’’ As such, NOAA 

believes that anchoring to prevent 

unsafe conditions is covered under 

current sanctuary regulations. 

21. Comment: NOAA received one 

comment expressing concern that if 

NOAA broadens the scope of the 

Wisconsin sanctuary beyond maritime 

heritage resources, this would 

negatively impact the ability of shippers 

to conduct ballast water exchange. 

Response: NOAA is committed to 

ensuring that the creation of the 

sanctuary would support businesses and 

organizations that use the lake and 

surrounding ports. NOAA has not 

proposed any regulations prohibiting 

ballast water exchange in the sanctuary. 

Also, the Coast Guard Authorization Act 

of 2015 (Pub. L. 114–120) prevents the 

Coast Guard and U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency from prohibiting 

ballast water exchange in national 

marine sanctuaries in the Great Lakes 

that protect maritime heritage resources. 

Ballast water operations would continue 

as currently conducted. In terms of 

future changes to the sanctuary’s scope 

beyond underwater cultural resources, 

such a change would require a public 

process similar to the original 

designation, thereby affording 

commercial interests and the public an 

opportunity to comment on how any 

change in the scope might affect ballast 

water exchange. 

22. Comment: NOAA received several 

comments stating that the sanctuary 

would have a negative impact on 

shipping and could result in businesses 

being closed. The comments indicated 

that the proposed sanctuary, as a 

cultural asset, should not encumber 

critical commercial activity related to 

maritime transportation into Wisconsin 

ports and through Wisconsin waters. 

Current legal navigational practices 

should continue to be allowed. 

Response: NOAA’s proposal does not 

include restrictions to shipping. The 

proposal excludes the ports, marinas, 

and harbors of Two Rivers, Manitowoc, 

Sheboygan, and Port Washington from 

the sanctuary boundaries to avoid any 

unintended consequences of sanctuary 

designation on those operations. In 

addition, NOAA is proposing to 

eliminate the federally authorized areas 

(channels) from the sanctuary. 

23. Comment: Several commenters 

asked if the sanctuary designation gives 

NOAA the right to regulate commercial 

and recreational fishing. One comment 

indicated that federal regulations as a 

result of sanctuary designation should 

not affect the ability of commercial 

fishermen to conduct their fishing 

operations (particularly in ‘‘Zone 3’’). 

Response: Sanctuary regulations and 

terms of designation are narrowly 

defined to protect underwater cultural 

resources, and under the current terms 

of designation for WSCNMS, NOAA 

does not regulate commercial or 

recreational fishing activities. There are 

no restrictions on where fishing 

activities can occur or what gear 

fishermen can use, as long as the fishing 

activities do not injure underwater 

cultural resources. NOAA would need 

to amend the terms of designation 

through a public process in order to 

regulate commercial and recreational 

fishing. Through its ongoing lakebed 

mapping surveys, the sanctuary will 

work with commercial fishermen to 

identify and share shipwreck locations 

to help avoid net entanglements. 

Definitions, Fines, Enforcement, and 

Scope of Regulations 

24. Comment: NOAA received a 

comment indicating that the definition 

of sanctuary resource is too broad and 

could mean any ‘‘debris’’ (e.g., beach 

glass, etc.) along the beach and below 

the ordinary high water mark. This 

could lead to people being fined for 

gathering such items along the beach. 

Response: NOAA is proposing the 

LWD as the sanctuary’s landward 

boundary. Consequently, the area 

between the OHWM and the LWD (i.e., 

most of the beach area) is not included 

in the preferred alternative for the 

sanctuary. Under the preferred 

alternative, cultural resources found 

along the beach between the OHWM 

and the LWD are not subject to the 

sanctuary regulations, but will remain 

subject to state regulation. 

25. Comment: One commenter asked 

whether NOAA could impose legally 

enforceable restrictions on lake 

activities that are currently permissible 

by state authorities. 

Response: No current state laws 

would be superseded by the proposed 

national marine sanctuary. The NMSA 

gives NOAA the authority to manage 

national marine sanctuaries in a manner 

that complements existing regulatory 

authority (16 U.S.C. 1431(b)(2)). Prior to 

designation, Section 304(6)(1) of the 

NMSA provides the governor with 

authority to certify that the designation 

or terms thereof are unacceptable, and 

preclude the designation or terms 

thereof from taking effect in state waters 

(16 U.S.C. 1434(6)(1)). This feature of 

the NMSA ensures the harmony of 

federal and state regulations, as well as 

provides the states with final approval 

of the designation and its regulations. 

For example, one of the proposed 

Wisconsin sanctuary regulations, 

developed in consultation with the State 

of Wisconsin, is to prohibit anchoring at 

shipwreck sites. While there is no state 

prohibition on this activity, it is a 

violation of state law to damage 

shipwrecks, including damage from 

anchoring. To facilitate public access to 

shipwrecks and to eliminate the need 

for anchoring at these often fragile sites, 

NOAA would install moorings at these 

sites. In this way, the sanctuary 

strengthens and complements state 

regulations and facilitates public access 

through a combination of regulation and 

proactive resource protection measures. 

26. Comment: NOAA received 

questions on who enforces sanctuary 

regulations, fines associated with 

violations of sanctuary regulations 

(including how the fines are calculated), 

examples of fines, and what happens to 

the funds NOAA receives from 

violations. 

Response: NOAA views law 

enforcement as just one aspect of a 

sanctuary’s comprehensive resource 

management strategy. Developing a plan 

to facilitate voluntary compliance with 

sanctuary regulations is another element 

of proactive enforcement included in 

the proposed sanctuary’s draft 

management plan. 

NOAA’s Office of Law Enforcement 

enforces all of NOAA’s natural and 

cultural resource laws, while also 

working with the U.S. Coast Guard 

(USCG) to enforce sanctuary regulations 

in the Great Lakes. 

Violations of federal sanctuary 

regulations are violations of the NMSA, 

a federal statute. Civil violations are 

governed under NOAA’s civil procedure 

regulations found at 15 CFR part 904. 

NOAA’s Office of General Counsel 

assesses civil penalties in accordance 

with the nature, gravity, and 

circumstances of a violation. NOAA 

assesses civil penalties through the 

issuance of a notice of violation and 

assessment of civil penalty (NOVA). 

NOAA General Counsel publishes its 

penalty policy online to provide notice 

to the public about how it calculates 

penalties in any given case and to 

provide information about a typical 

penalty for a given type of violation. 

That information can be found at 

https://www.gc.noaa.gov/documents/ 

Penalty-Policy-CLEAN-June242019.pdf. 

Persons charged with civil violations 

are entitled to an opportunity for an 

administrative hearing before an 

administrative law judge (ALJ), and may 

seek reconsideration of the ALJ’s ruling 

and appeal of the ALJ decision to the 

NOAA administrator. Persons may seek 

judicial review of the administrator’s 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
32746 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 118 / Wednesday, June 23, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

decision before a federal district court. 

Criminal violations are referred to the 

U.S. Department of Justice for 

prosecution. 

NOAA’s Office of General Counsel 

does not produce an annual report 

detailing violations and fines levied. 

However, administrative decisions 

regarding NOAA violations that are 

decided by an ALJ and/or decided on 

appeal to the NOAA administrator are 

published at http://www.gc.noaa.gov/ 

enforce-office6.html. 

Under the NMSA (16 U.S.C. 1437(f)), 

amounts received from civil penalties 

must be used by NOAA in the following 

priority order: First, to manage and 

improve the sanctuary with respect to 

which the violation occurred that 

resulted in the penalty (e.g., used to 

restore any damage to a vessel caused by 

violating the anchoring restrictions); 

second, to pay a reward to a person who 

furnishes information leading to the 

civil penalty; or, third, to manage and 

improve any other national marine 

sanctuary. 

27. Comment: NOAA received a 

comment asking about the definition of 

‘‘interfering with’’ federal investigations 

and how NOAA would determine if an 

action constitutes interference. 

Response: The NOAA Office of Law 

Enforcement, along with state officers 

where authorized under cooperative 

enforcement agreements, monitor 

compliance and investigates potential 

violations of the NMSA and its 

regulations. The NMSA specifies the 

authorities of those officers and agents, 

which includes general authorities to 

investigate violations of the statute, 

regulations, or a permit issued pursuant 

to the NMSA; seize evidence of 

violations or sanctuary resources taken 

in violation of the NMSA; and exercise 

other lawful authorities as sworn federal 

law enforcement authorities. Sanctuary 

regulations would prohibit interfering 

with these investigations. 

Violations of the NMSA are primarily 

handled as civil administrative matters, 

pursuant to the Administrative 

Procedure Act. NOAA assesses civil 

penalties through the issuance of a 

NOVA. NOAA’s Office of General 

Counsel assesses civil penalties in 

accordance with the nature, gravity, and 

circumstances of a violation. NOAA 

General Counsel publishes its penalty 

policy on its website to provide notice 

to the public as to how it calculates 

penalties in any given case and to 

provide information as to a typical 

penalty for a given type of violation. 

That information can be found at 

https://www.gc.noaa.gov/documents/ 

Penalty-Policy-CLEAN-June242019.pdf. 

28. Comment: Several comments 

indicated that because NOAA has the 

authority to regulate a wide variety of 

resources through the National Marine 

Sanctuaries Act, there is concern that in 

the future NOAA will expand its 

authority beyond protecting maritime 

heritage resources. 

Response: Refer to comment 21 above. 

29. Comment: NOAA received a 

comment asking what happens if a 

modern vessel sinks or wrecks in the 

sanctuary boundaries. Does the owner of 

the sunken property get to salvage 

his/her vessel or does this become a 

sanctuary resource? 

Response: Current salvage rules and 

regulations would continue to apply 

within WSCNMS. A recently sunken 

vessel would not be included in the 

definition of ‘‘sanctuary resources’’ 

which means ‘‘all prehistoric, historic, 

archaeological, and cultural sites and 

artifacts within the sanctuary boundary, 

including all shipwreck sites.’’ 

Additionally, ‘‘shipwreck site’’ means 

‘‘any historic sunken watercraft, its 

components, cargo, contents, and 

associated debris field.’’ 

NOAA revised the definition in 

§ 922.211(a)(2) for ‘‘shipwreck site’’ by 

adding ‘‘historic’’ to clarify its focus on 

historic shipwrecks (i.e., not all 

shipwrecks, but those that demonstrate 

an important role in or relationship with 

maritime history). This addition 

specifically responded to concerns 

about defining recent or contemporary 

sunken craft or objects as sanctuary 

resources. For the purposes of the final 

rule, ‘‘historic’’ takes its definition from 

‘‘historical resource’’ located in § 922.3 

of the generally applicable sanctuaries 

regulations. 

30. Comment: Several commenters 

indicated that shipwrecks are not 

mentioned in the 1972 Marine 

Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries 

Act, so NOAA does not have the 

authority to designate a ‘‘shipwreck’’ 

sanctuary. 

Response: The NMSA expressly 

provides that ‘‘the Secretary may 

designate any discrete area of the 

marine environment as a national 

marine sanctuary . . . (if) the area is of 

special national significance due to its 

conservation, recreational, ecological, 

historical, scientific, cultural, 

archaeological, educational, or esthetic 

qualities’’ (16 U.S.C. 1431(a)(2)). 

31. Comment: One commenter 

requested to know what NOAA means 

by the term ‘‘lakebottom associated with 

underwater cultural resources.’’ 

Response: NOAA did not propose any 

regulation containing the language cited 

by the commenter. 

32. Comment: A few commenters 

suggested that NOAA should not take 

away the public’s right to use metal 

detectors. 

Response: NOAA is not proposing to 

prohibit metal detecting in the 

sanctuary. In addition, the area between 

the OHWM and the LWD (where metal 

detecting on the beach would likely take 

place) is not included in the sanctuary 

boundary. 

33. Comment: One commenter raised 

concerns that NOAA would prohibit 

exploration for and development of 

minerals or other natural resources in 

the proposed sanctuary. 

Response: NOAA is not proposing to 

prohibit natural resources exploration 

and development in the sanctuary. The 

regulations are narrowly defined to 

protect underwater cultural resources. 

There are no restrictions to natural 

resources exploration and development 

as long as these activities do not injure 

underwater cultural resources or 

otherwise conflict with regulations 

specific to WSCNMS. 

34. Comment: One commenter asked 

if the proposed sanctuary could ever be 

abandoned or decommissioned. 

Response: Although the NMSA does 

not contemplate de-designation of a 

national marine sanctuary, NOAA 

engages closely with the state and 

public to review and revise its sanctuary 

management plan every five years. The 

management plan prioritizes resource 

management goals and describes actions 

by NOAA and its partners to accomplish 

them. The plan encompasses all nonregulatory programming—research, 

resource protection, education, 

outreach, volunteers, operations—that 

protects the cultural resources of the 

sanctuary while supporting responsible 

uses and enjoyment. A full management 

review process may take two to three 

years and involve several opportunities 

for public participation through scoping 

and review and comment on a draft and 

final plan. The Sanctuary Advisory 

Council would have a key role in the 

management plan review process. 

35. Comment: A few commenters 

requested that sanctuary regulations 

protect natural and biological resources 

in the Great Lakes ecosystem. 

Comments suggested regulations to 

prevent wastewater discharges, 

discharge of mercury and other toxic 

materials, risks from aging 

infrastructure, spread of invasive 

species, and other risks to wildlife and 

habitat. 

Response: This is beyond the scope of 

NOAA’s stated need for action, which 

focused on the protection and 

interpretation of nationally significant 

underwater cultural resources. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 118 / Wednesday, June 23, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 32747 

36. Comment: NOAA received 

comments asking whether the sanctuary 

would create any additional restrictions 

or regulatory requirements related to 

dredging, pier structure maintenance, or 

extension of pier structures, and if local 

entities would require NOAA 

permission to install a new water intake 

line into Lake Michigan or to continue 

grooming beaches, including areas 

below the OHWM. A related comment 

requested that all necessary 

maintenance activities regarding Lake 

Michigan water intakes should be 

allowed to proceed uninhibited within 

the sanctuary boundaries. 

Response: WSCNMS regulations are 

narrowly focused on protecting 

underwater cultural resources. If an 

activity does not injure these sanctuary 

resources, it is not restricted or 

prohibited, and does not require a 

sanctuary permit. Dredging, pier 

construction and maintenance, and 

other construction activities are not 

expressly prohibited activities under the 

proposed regulations. However, should 

these types of activities violate the 

sanctuary prohibition on ‘‘moving, 

removing, recovering, altering, 

destroying, possessing, or otherwise 

injuring’’ a resource, they would be 

prohibited. 

Activities mentioned in this comment 

are already regulated by state and other 

federal entities. Section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act 

requires the State of Wisconsin to 

identify known and potential historic 

resources that may be impacted by 

dredging and other activities that affect 

the lakebed. NOAA, through its comanagement arrangement with the state 

and through the consultation 

requirement for federal agencies under 

the NMSA Section 304(d), would 

coordinate its response, including 

potential permitting and Section 106 

consultation, when historic/cultural 

resources may be impacted. 

As for grooming beaches, NOAA 

proposes to adopt a boundary of the 

LWD, which will effectively exclude 

beaches from the boundaries of the 

sanctuary. 

37. Comment: NOAA received a 

comment requesting that it refrain from 

depicting the national marine sanctuary 

on Federal Aviation Administration’s 

aeronautical charts to avoid confusion 

and misinterpretation of the area by 

general aviation pilots. 

Response: NOAA is not proposing 

including overflight restrictions as part 

of the sanctuary prohibitions, and not 

proposing that the sanctuary be 

depicted on aeronautical charts. 

38. Comment: NOAA received one 

comment that the proposed sanctuary 

overlaps the boundaries of a restricted 

area (R–6903) used by the Volk Field 

Combat Readiness Training Center. In 

the unlikely event that the Wisconsin 

Air National Guard or users of R–6903 

would need to conduct some sort of 

unconventional and/or kinetic operation 

in R–6903, close coordination with 

NOAA and the Federal Aviation 

Administration would be a necessity. 

Response: NOAA agrees and will 

coordinate with the Air National Guard 

to ensure compatible use of the 

sanctuary. 

39. Comment: NOAA received a 

comment asking if the sanctuary would 

impact municipal lakebed grants. 

Response: No. The sanctuary proposal 

recognizes the state’s sovereignty over 

its waters and submerged lands, 

including any state lakebed leases. 

Public Review Process, State Legislature 

Involvement, State Role/Authority 

40. Comment: NOAA received a 

comment stating that it did not provide 

enough time for the public to comment 

and did not provide the public with 

enough information about the proposed 

sanctuary. NOAA also received one 

comment asking NOAA to hold a public 

session to help the public understand 

the sanctuary proposal. 

Response: NOAA held an 81-day 

public comment period, which exceeds 

the comment period generally 

recommended under Executive Order 

12866 and the 45-day required comment 

period for a DEIS under NEPA, to allow 

the public time to review the proposal 

and provide comments. NOAA also held 

four public meetings to discuss the 

proposal and gather public comments. 

These meetings were held in four cities 

along the coastal area to ensure public 

access. NOAA also published a Federal 

Register notice and a website (http://

sanctuaries.noaa.gov/wisconsin/) with 

the proposed sanctuary information for 

the public, meeting NMSA notification 

requirements. Additionally, NOAA 

issued a press release and received 

coverage in the local, regional, and 

national press. NOAA staff presented at 

city council meetings in Two Rivers, 

Sheboygan, Port Washington, and 

Mequon, and at county council 

meetings in Sheboygan and Ozaukee 

counties. A timeline of the sanctuary 

designation process can be found in the 

FAQ section at https://

sanctuaries.noaa.gov/wisconsin/. 

41. Comment: NOAA received several 

comments asking how the state 

government is involved in the sanctuary 

designation and how a sanctuary 

designation can be done without the 

state legislature’s involvement. 

Response: Throughout the sanctuary 

designation process, NOAA worked 

closely with the Wisconsin Historical 

Society, Wisconsin Department of 

Natural Resources, Wisconsin Coastal 

Management Program, Wisconsin 

Department of Transportation, 

Wisconsin Department of Tourism, 

Wisconsin Public Service Commission, 

and the Wisconsin Public Lands 

Commission. Should NOAA and the 

Wisconsin governor ultimately concur 

on the designation, both NOAA and the 

state would co-manage WSCNMS. 

Furthermore, in national marine 

sanctuaries that include state waters, the 

NMSA provides the governor of the 

state with the opportunity to certify to 

the Secretary of Commerce that the 

designation or any of its terms is 

unacceptable (i.e., objects), in which 

case the designation or the unacceptable 

term shall not take effect. 

42. Comment: Many commenters 

suggested that a federal government 

program or involvement in Wisconsin is 

an intrusion into sovereign state waters. 

Designation of the sanctuary will result 

in the loss of state control of Lake 

Michigan, and a takeover of both 

management and regulation of the 

Wisconsin waters by the federal 

government. 

Response: Wisconsin Shipwreck 

Coast National Marine Sanctuary will 

not change the ownership or control of 

state lands or waters; that is, no loss of 

state sovereignty will occur as a result 

of designation of a national marine 

sanctuary. The state’s jurisdiction and 

rights will be maintained and NOAA 

will not intrude upon or change existing 

state or local authorities. All existing 

state laws, regulations, and authorities 

will remain in effect. The state will 

maintain ownership of the shipwrecks 

within the sanctuary. 

43. Comment: NOAA received several 

comments stating that while the 

proposal highlights co-management 

with the State of Wisconsin, the 

governor only gains power through 

Section 922.214, Emergency 

Regulations. NOAA should consider 

allowing the governor to hold form of a 

veto, or check and balanced action, or 

at least part of the leasing or licenses 

action. 

Response: The co-management of the 

sanctuary provides a number of 

opportunities for the State of Wisconsin, 

either through the governor or by state 

agencies, to participate in the 

management of the sanctuary. For 

sanctuaries in state waters, pursuant to 

the National Marine Sanctuaries Act 

304(b)(1), whenever a sanctuary is 

proposed to be designated, or the terms 

of designation changed, the governor 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
32748 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 118 / Wednesday, June 23, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

has the opportunity to certify to the 

Secretary of Commerce that the 

designation or any of its terms is 

unacceptable, in which case the 

designation or the unacceptable term 

shall not take effect. 

The memorandum of agreement 

between NOAA and the State of 

Wisconsin will describe the details of 

co-management. The governor and state 

agencies will have considerable latitude 

in shaping the future of the state’s comanagement framework with NOAA, 

including the type of regulations that 

would apply to WSCNMS. 

44. Comment: NOAA received a 

comment asking if NOAA does not 

ultimately establish a sanctuary, where 

the factors affecting this decision will be 

published. Will these factors be made a 

part of public record for future 

awareness and decision-making? 

Response: Should NOAA decide not 

to designate a sanctuary, it would 

publish a notice in the Federal Register 

to withdraw the proposed rule. The 

Federal Register notice would describe 

the reasons for NOAA’s decision. 

45. Comment: NOAA received a 

comment asking if it would ever have 

any accountability to existing state 

government lake regulations or laws, 

specifically those of the Wisconsin 

Department of Natural Resources. 

Response: The NMSA gives NOAA 

the authority to manage national marine 

sanctuaries in a manner that 

complements existing regulatory 

authority (16 U.S.C. 1431(b)(2)). In a comanagement framework with a 

respective state government, NOAA and 

the state would work collaboratively on 

the proposed sanctuary. A 

memorandum of agreement between 

NOAA and the state would ensure that 

state and federal authorities are 

harmonized and coordinated. In 

addition, during the designation process 

and any future changes to the terms of 

designation, the governor has the 

authority to certify as unacceptable all 

or parts of the designation, which 

prevents the unacceptable terms from 

taking effect in state waters (16 U.S.C. 

1434(b)(1)). 

Diver Access, Recreational Anchoring, 

Mooring Buoys, and Resource 

Management 

46. Comment: NOAA received one 

comment about the importance of 

NOAA defining what it means to not be 

able to anchor in areas ‘‘associated with 

a shipwreck.’’ 

Response: The definition of 

‘‘shipwreck site’’ in the WSCNMS 

regulations at 15 CFR 922.211(a)(2) 

means ‘‘any historic sunken watercraft, 

its components, cargo, contents, and 

associated debris field.’’ Debris fields 

associated with shipwrecks sites can 

have significant archaeological value, 

including the existence of fragile ship 

structure and artifacts. By ‘‘associated 

debris field,’’ NOAA means all cultural 

material adjacent to a shipwreck site, 

but not necessarily contiguous with it. 

Each shipwreck site is unique, and the 

resultant debris field forms through a 

variety of site-specific factors including 

depth, circumstances of sinking, and 

other factors. As more data are gathered 

(e.g., through sonar surveys) on 

individual shipwrecks sites and 

associated debris fields, NOAA will 

publish information that helps visitors 

anchor outside of areas that could be 

damaged. 

47. Comment: NOAA received several 

comments indicating that divers are a 

small percentage of the population, and 

questioned why a sanctuary should be 

established to serve such a small group. 

Response: As demonstrated in many 

sanctuaries, much of the public often 

benefits from the sanctuary through 

diving, kayaking, and snorkeling, as 

well as through museums, interpretive 

displays, websites, formal and informal 

educational programs, enhanced 

tourism opportunities, multidisciplinary 

research opportunities, and other 

unique sanctuary-related partnerships 

and activities. The sanctuary’s final 

management plan outlines priorities in 

these areas for the first five years of the 

sanctuary’s operation. These priorities 

substantially expand the public benefit 

of the sanctuary beyond that of divers. 

48. Comment: NOAA received one 

comment that if NOAA does not install 

mooring buoys on all shipwrecks, the 

prohibition on anchoring will be 

detrimental to public access. 

Response: NOAA promotes public 

access to shipwrecks, and believes this 

is a fundamental way to increase their 

cultural and recreational value. 

Permanent moorings are an important 

resource protection measure that 

eliminates the need to grapple or anchor 

into the often fragile sites. This priority 

is described in the final management 

plan as Strategy RP–3. 

NOAA recognizes that it will take 

time to install moorings at all 

shipwrecks sites, and that some sites 

(particularly deep sites) create 

challenges for ideal mooring systems. 

Consequently, NOAA is proposing a 

two-year delay in the implementation of 

the no-anchoring prohibition. During 

this period, the sanctuary will work 

with the state, Sanctuary Advisory 

Council, a diver working group, and 

other relevant stakeholders to develop a 

moorings implementation plan and best 

practices document. During the twoyear delay, NOAA will also consider 

guidelines for allowing divers to tie 

moorings directly on certain shipwrecks 

sites via a no-fee sanctuary permit. 

49. Comment: NOAA received one 

comment that anchoring outside the 

shipwreck with the ‘‘shot line’’ method 

is not practical and it increases the 

dangers of diving. 

Response: NOAA recognizes that 

anchoring outside the wreck and using 

a shot line (a weighted line with surface 

buoy dropped onto a shipwreck site to 

mark its location and provide reference 

for divers) may be a new practice for 

some users and not possible for all 

users. NOAA recognizes, too, that it will 

take time to install sanctuarymaintained moorings (see previous 

comment). Consequently, NOAA is 

considering allowing users to apply for 

a sanctuary permit to tie a suitable longterm mooring line directly into some 

shipwreck sites, which is a common and 

more familiar practice. Among other 

resource protection benefits, a no-fee 

permit would allow the sanctuary to 

work directly with users to determine 

which shipwrecks are most popular, 

and thereby prioritize future sanctuarymaintained permanent moorings located 

adjacent to the shipwreck. 

50. Comment: NOAA received a few 

comments about who would be in 

charge of placing mooring buoys, how 

early in the season buoys would be 

placed, if there would be online 

resources outlining the status of 

shipwrecks as marked or unmarked, and 

how members of a local community 

could be involved in buoy management. 

Response: As indicated in the final 

management plan at Strategy RP–3 

(Activity 3.1), NOAA will develop a 

five-year plan to develop and begin 

implementation of a plan for design, 

implementation, and maintenance of 

mooring buoy system, including 

priorities for which shipwrecks to buoy. 

Activity 3.1 includes an item to ‘‘work 

with local dive charters to monitor 

moorings throughout the dive season.’’ 

Overall, while NOAA will have the lead 

responsibility for the mooring buoys in 

the sanctuary, it will work in close 

cooperation with the state and with 

local partners. With regard to online 

status, in time WSCNMS will have a 

GIS-based map similar to that of 

Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary 

(https://thunderbay.noaa.gov/ 

shipwrecks/mooring_program.html). 

The online tool shows the seasonal 

status of mooring buoys at shipwreck 

sites. As indicated in Comment 47, the 

sanctuary will convene a working group 

to explore how best to implement the 

mooring buoy plan, which includes the 

potential use of volunteers. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 118 / Wednesday, June 23, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 32749 

51. Comment: NOAA received several 

comments about the importance of 

NOAA providing additional protection 

to shipwrecks. 

Response: Protecting shipwrecks and 

other underwater cultural resources will 

be a priority of Wisconsin Shipwreck 

Coast National Marine Sanctuary. As 

described in the final management plan, 

there are several ways to accomplish the 

resource protection goal, including 

enhanced regulations, installing 

mooring buoys, engaging with divers 

about best practices for diving, 

providing general education regarding 

the significance of these resources, and 

enforcing federal and state regulations 

to address protecting shipwrecks. 

52. Comment: NOAA received a few 

comments that people should not be 

restricted from searching for 

shipwrecks. 

Response: NOAA is not restricting the 

ability of the public to search for 

shipwrecks, or proposing requiring a 

sanctuary permit for this activity. 

53. Comment: NOAA received several 

comments stating that there should not 

be any restrictions on access to 

shipwrecks. 

Response: NOAA is not proposing 

regulation of, or restrictions on, 

recreational diving activities within the 

sanctuary, as long as the activities do 

not injure sanctuary resources or result 

in anchoring on or grappling onto a 

shipwreck site. NOAA is not proposing 

requiring a permit to dive in the 

sanctuary. 

54. Comment: NOAA received a few 

comments asking how locations of 

newly discovered shipwrecks would be 

made public. 

Response: While it is the intention of 

the sanctuary to release coordinates of 

known shipwrecks, NOAA may decide 

to withhold the release of coordinates of 

a newly discovered, historically 

significant shipwreck for a period of 

time so that NOAA and the state can 

document the site and its artifacts. 

Under this scenario, NOAA will use 

agency and partner resources (and 

possibly volunteers) to document the 

site. A newly discovered site may be 

particularly fragile or possess a large 

number of artifacts, and specific 

management or monitoring measures 

would need to be put into place before 

site coordinates are published on the 

sanctuary’s website. 

55. Comment: NOAA received several 

comments asking how the sanctuary 

would actually protect shipwrecks, 

including whether there is sufficient 

enforcement to protect shipwrecks. 

Response: The goal of WSCNMS is to 

comprehensively manage the 

underwater cultural resources of Lake 

Michigan. Enforcement is one aspect of 

the resource protection strategy as 

indicated in Strategy RP–5 of the final 

management plan, which states 

‘‘Develop a plan to increase awareness 

of sanctuary regulations and state law 

and to enhance law enforcement 

efforts.’’ Since NOAA does not currently 

have enforcement officers in the Great 

Lakes, NOAA works with the U.S. Coast 

Guard to enforce sanctuary regulations. 

NOAA would also work with state 

partners to explore options for 

assistance in the enforcement of 

sanctuary regulations. Developing a 

plan to facilitate voluntary compliance 

with sanctuary regulations is another 

element of proactive enforcement 

included in the sanctuary’s management 

plan. 

56. Comment: NOAA received one 

comment asking if future maritime 

archaeological research in the sanctuary 

would be restricted. 

Response: NOAA encourages research 

and documentation of underwater 

cultural resources, and in many cases 

can facilitate and act as a partner in 

these activities. NOAA is not restricting 

archaeological research, including Phase 

1 (searching for shipwrecks) and Phase 

2 (documenting shipwrecks) 

archaeology. However, given the 

sanctuary’s proposed prohibition on 

injuring/damaging shipwreck sites, 

NOAA encourages researchers to obtain 

a Phase I archaeology permit from the 

State of Wisconsin, and consult with the 

sanctuary superintendent ahead of 

conducting research. For archaeological 

projects that will alter a site, or seek to 

remove artifacts, both a state and 

sanctuary permit would be required. 

Through a programmatic agreement, 

NOAA and the state will seek to 

simplify this process. 

57. Comment: NOAA received several 

comments stating that the threat to 

shipwrecks will increase with increased 

tourism. The commenters asked who 

would monitor the shipwrecks, how the 

shipwrecks would be protected, and 

who would pay for these costs. 

Response: NOAA believes that 

increasing public access and tourism to 

shipwrecks sites is an important way to 

foster awareness, appreciation, and 

ultimately protection of these special 

places. While NOAA encourages public 

access to shipwrecks, we are aware that 

increased use can result in additional 

pressure to these resources. The final 

management plan takes a broad 

approach to ensuring that the 

shipwrecks are protected to the greatest 

extent possible through the resource 

protection, education, and research. 

Monitoring is captured Strategy RP–2 of 

the final management plan. 

Other elements of the final 

management plan that address increased 

use of sanctuary resources are the 

installation of additional mooring 

buoys, and public outreach programs on 

the value and fragility of shipwrecks. 

Appendix 1 of the final management 

plan addresses potential sanctuary 

operating budgets and partner 

contributions. 

58. Comment: NOAA received many 

comments stating that the State of 

Wisconsin already protects shipwrecks, 

and that this effort should not be 

duplicated by the federal government. 

Response: NOAA and the state will be 

co-managers of the sanctuary and work 

together to ensure that their efforts are 

complementary and not duplicative. 

Importantly, this co-management 

arrangement affords opportunities that 

neither NOAA nor the state could 

realize on its own. As detailed in the 

FEIS (see Chapter 2), designation as a 

national marine sanctuary would 

provide increased resources to carry out 

the research, education, and law 

enforcement activities necessary to more 

comprehensively manage, protect, and 

increase the public benefit of these 

resources. For example, the sanctuary 

would bring national attention, interest, 

resources, and partners to the area. The 

sanctuary nomination put forth in 2014 

by the State of Wisconsin on behalf of 

several lakeshore communities states 

the reasons the state wanted to partner 

with NOAA to protect the shipwrecks. 

The sanctuary nomination can be found 

at https://nominate.noaa.gov/media/ 

documents/nomination_lake_michigan_

wisconsin.pdf. An example of the types 

of research programs and activities that 

a national marine sanctuary could 

provide in Wisconsin can be found in 

Thunder Bay National Marine 

Sanctuary’s 2013 condition report 

(https://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/science/ 

condition/tbnms/). 

59. Comment: NOAA received a few 

comments suggesting that shipwrecks 

are not threatened to the degree that 

necessitates NOAA involvement, and 

that shipwrecks are already preserved 

by the fresh water of the Great Lakes. 

Response: While it is true that the 

cold, fresh water of the Great Lakes 

preserves shipwrecks better than a 

saltwater environment, this alone does 

not negate negative impacts to 

Wisconsin’s shipwrecks. These threats, 

as described in the FEIS (see Chapter 2), 

include both natural processes and 

human activities. Human threats to 

underwater cultural resources include 

looting and altering shipwreck sites and 

damaging shipwreck sites by anchoring. 

The proposed final rule for WSCNMS 

includes a prohibition on the use of 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
32750 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 118 / Wednesday, June 23, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

grappling hooks and anchors at 

shipwreck sites. This prohibition will 

more directly address damage to 

shipwrecks than the state is able to 

address. Additionally, as steward of 

these nationally significant cultural 

resources, NOAA believes that creating 

public awareness and engagement in the 

sanctuary through research, education, 

and community engagement is an 

essential means of resource protection 

and increasing public benefit. 

60. Comment: NOAA received a 

comment asking whether NOAA could 

charge new fees (for a permit or 

otherwise) on citizens for lake activities 

that are currently free. 

Response: NOAA is not proposing to 

charge any fees on any activity within 

the proposed Wisconsin sanctuary. 

Funding 

61. Comment: NOAA received several 

comments related to the cost of 

designating a national marine sanctuary. 

The comments included a concern 

about higher taxes as a result of the 

designation; a concern that the federal 

government does not have sufficient 

funds to manage the area; a statement 

that federal funds would be better used 

to protect natural resources; a concern 

that NOAA has not provided a cost or 

budget analysis; a comment about 

financial accountability; and two 

questions asking about the sources of 

funding for the sanctuary. 

Response: The National Marine 

Sanctuaries Act (16 U.S.C. Chapter 32) 

directs NOAA to protect these 

nationally significant ecological and 

historical resources. As a federal agency, 

appropriations for NOAA programs are 

enacted by Congress, and signed into 

law by the president. An annual 

allocation for the management of all the 

national marine sanctuaries is included 

in each annual appropriation. NOAA 

makes funding decisions for each 

sanctuary based on the funding level, 

program priorities, and site needs. As a 

result, funding for a given site can vary 

with fluctuations in annual 

appropriations, which may impact the 

level of activities completed in the 

management plan each year. As part of 

the final management plan for this 

sanctuary, NOAA included a summary 

of the sanctuary activities that are 

possible at several funding levels. 

NOAA also anticipates that a varying 

level of in-kind contributions from comanagers and partners, as well as grants 

and other outside funding, will 

contribute to the overall sanctuary goals. 

Additionally, ONMS has received 

roughly $2 million in donations and inkind contributions and 120,000 

volunteer hours per year at its sites 

nationwide. 

62. Comment: One commenter asked 

what would happen if Congress chose to 

not appropriate sufficient funds for the 

proposed sanctuary’s operations in any 

given fiscal year? 

Response: The NMSA (16 U.S.C. 1431 

et seq.) directs NOAA to protect these 

nationally significant areas and their 

ecological and historical resources. A 

program allocation in NOAA’s annual 

appropriations typically provides 

funding for the management of all of the 

national marine sanctuaries. While 

NOAA makes funding decisions for 

each sanctuary based on the ONMS 

funding level, program priorities, and 

site needs, it executes the ONMS budget 

to ensure basic operating costs at all 

national marine sanctuaries are met. 

Economic Impact 

63. Comment: NOAA received several 

comments that the economic impact of 

the sanctuary would be limited because 

not many people dive, and local 

museums already do the outreach that 

NOAA is proposing. Similarly, NOAA 

received several comments stating that 

the socioeconomic impact study on 

Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary 

by the University of Michigan does not 

demonstrate positive impacts. The 

commenters asked why NOAA expects 

positive economic impacts in 

Wisconsin. 

Response: As demonstrated at other 

national marine sanctuaries, NOAA 

believes that broader public outreach 

and education are also important 

resource protection activities, because 

they increase awareness, appreciation, 

and value of our nation’s maritime 

heritage and nationally significant 

historic sites. That sanctuary activities 

aimed at the non-diving public could 

benefit the region was recognized in the 

2014 sanctuary nomination, which 

indicated that a chief goal for the state 

and communities was to leverage the 

sanctuary to ‘‘Build and expand on state 

and local tourism initiatives and 

enhance opportunities for job creation.’’ 

Letters of support from many area 

museums accompanied the sanctuary 

nomination (https://nominate.noaa.gov/ 

media/documents/nomination_lake_

michigan_wisconsin.pdf). Consequently, 

education and outreach activities 

constitute a significant part of the 

sanctuary’s final management plan. 

Initiatives at NOAA’s Thunder Bay 

National Marine Sanctuary in Alpena, 

Michigan, provide an example of a wide 

range of education, outreach, 

interpretation, tourism, and 

partnerships aimed at the benefitting the 

general public. NOAA disagrees with 

the comment on the 2013 economic 

study for Thunder Bay National Marine 

Sanctuary. 

Draft Management Plan, Sanctuary 

Name, Operations 

64. Comment: NOAA received one 

comment that NOAA should consider 

modifying the goal statement in the 

education and outreach plan to include 

education and dissemination of the 

maritime cultural landscape perspective 

as well as the shipwrecks to be 

protected by the proposed sanctuary, 

and that all of the strategies should 

address the maritime cultural 

landscape. 

Response: NOAA believes the 

maritime cultural landscape is an 

essential component of interpreting, 

understanding, and appreciating 

historic shipwrecks. The final 

management plan contains a strategy 

and two activities aimed at 

characterizing the sanctuary’s maritime 

cultural landscape. NOAA added a 

reference to maritime cultural 

landscapes in the ‘‘Objectives’’ section 

of the education management plan. As 

described by the National Park Service, 

a cultural landscape is a geographic area 

including cultural and natural 

resources, coastal environments, human 

communities, and related scenery that is 

associated with historic events, 

activities, or persons, or exhibits other 

cultural or aesthetic value. 

65. Comment: NOAA received one 

comment stating that NOAA should 

fund the sanctuary at the $700,000 level 

(as indicated in a summary of potential 

funding scenarios in Appendix 1 of the 

final management plan), as this would 

include enough resources to hire an 

education coordinator and implement 

an education program. 

Response: NOAA agrees it is 

important to implement elements of the 

Education and Outreach Action Plan. 

NOAA makes funding decisions based 

on annual appropriations to the 

program, which drive decisions for each 

sanctuary based on the funding level, 

program priorities, and site needs. As a 

result, site level funding can vary from 

year to year, which may impact the level 

of activities completed in the 

management plan each year. 

66. Comment: NOAA received one 

comment stating that NOAA needs to 

have a presence in each community 

working on this designation process. 

Rather than having a new visitor center 

created post-designation, NOAA should 

capitalize on the existing informal 

learning institutions and allied 

organizations already working to 

educate and inspire public appreciation 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 118 / Wednesday, June 23, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 32751 

of—and involvement in—the Great 

Lakes. 

Response: One of the strengths of the 

WSCNMS designation is the many 

opportunities to partner with, leverage, 

and complement assets in each of the 

sanctuary communities. Per final 

management plan Strategy SO–1, the 

sanctuary will ‘‘Develop a ‘NOAA 

presence’ within sanctuary communities 

that supports the sanctuary’s mission 

and infrastructure needs, and that 

recognizes, leverages, and complements 

individual assets in sanctuary 

communities.’’ NOAA will develop the 

strategic plan supporting Strategy SO–1 

after designation in cooperation with 

local communities, other appropriate 

partners, and the Sanctuary Advisory 

Council to ensure that NOAA is 

capitalizing on existing efforts and 

institutions in the region. 

67. Comment: NOAA received one 

comment stating that the proposal 

should provide more specificity about 

educational programming and 

technology for K–12. 

Response: NOAA’s final management 

plan is the initial management plan for 

this site, and as such describes general 

objectives for education and outreach 

activities. As sanctuary staff are hired 

and as NOAA engages with its 

education partners after designation, 

more specificity will emerge for the 

sanctuary’s education and outreach 

activities. 

68. Comment: NOAA received one 

comment suggesting that the sanctuary 

should be named ‘‘Wisconsin Marine 

Protection Area’’ as the name is shorter 

and easier to say, it would result in less 

clutter on a map, and people could 

identify the name easier. 

Response: Community and partner 

discussions during a sanctuary branding 

workshop sponsored by the Wisconsin 

Department of Tourism produced the 

name Wisconsin Shipwreck Coast 

National Marine Sanctuary, which 

NOAA proposes as the sanctuary’s 

official name. The new name reflects the 

sanctuary’s cultural heritage focus, is 

responsive to community input, and is 

conducive to marketing and branding 

efforts. 

69. Comment: NOAA received one 

comment stating that Sheboygan would 

be the ideal location for a sanctuary 

office because it is centrally located, has 

the most developed riverfront, has Blue 

Harbor Resort and charter fishing fleets, 

and is the largest of the cities in the 

proposed sanctuary. NOAA also 

received other comments identifying 

specific communities in a similar way, 

such as Port Washington. 

Response: One of the strengths of the 

WSCNMS designation is the many 

opportunities to partner with, leverage, 

and complement assets in each of the 

sanctuary communities. Per final 

management plan Strategy SO–1, the 

sanctuary will ‘‘Develop a ‘NOAA 

presence’ within sanctuary communities 

that supports the sanctuary’s mission 

and infrastructure needs, and that 

recognizes, leverages, and complements 

individual assets in sanctuary 

communities.’’ NOAA has not made any 

decisions about sanctuary office 

locations. 

70. Comment: NOAA received one 

comment from the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency stating that NOAA 

should address green building practices 

and climate change and greenhouse 

gases in the FEIS. EPA recommended 

that the FEIS explain the geographic and 

policy definitions of the term 

‘‘coastline’’ as it applies to this 

proposed designation. 

Response: The FEIS does not include 

a plan for facility construction or 

operation as part of the proposed action. 

However, should NOAA propose any of 

these activities in the future, it will 

consider environmentally responsible 

practices suggested in EPA’s 

recommendations. In using the term 

‘‘coastline,’’ NOAA does not define it as 

a legal term; instead it is used generally 

to refer to the land-water interface. The 

shore side boundary is defined as the 

LWD. 

V. Classification 

1. National Marine Sanctuaries Act 

NOAA has determined that the 

designation of the Wisconsin Shipwreck 

Coast National Marine Sanctuary will 

not have a negative impact on the 

National Marine Sanctuary System and 

that sufficient resources exist to 

effectively implement sanctuary 

management plans. The final finding for 

NMSA section 304(f) is published on 

the ONMS website for Wisconsin 

Shipwreck Coast designation at http://

sanctuaries.noaa.gov/wisconsin/. 

2. National Environmental Policy Act 

NOAA has prepared a final 

environmental impact statement to 

evaluate the environmental effects of the 

rulemaking and alternatives as required 

by NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and 

the NMSA. The Notice of Availability is 

available at 85 FR 34625. NOAA has 

also prepared a Record of Decision 

(ROD). Copies of the ROD and the FEIS 

are available at the address and website 

listed in the ADDRESSES section of this 

rule. 

3. Coastal Zone Management Act 

Section 307 of the Coastal Zone 

Management Act (CZMA; 16 U.S.C. 

1456) requires Federal agencies to 

consult with a state’s coastal program on 

potential Federal activities that have 

reasonably foreseeable effects on any 

coastal use or resource. Such activities 

must be consistent with approved state 

coastal policies to the maximum extent 

possible. Because WSCNMS 

encompasses a portion of the Wisconsin 

state waters, NOAA submitted a copy of 

the proposed rule and supporting 

documents to the State of Wisconsin 

Coastal Zone Management Program for 

evaluation of Federal consistency under 

the CZMA. NOAA has presumed the 

state’s concurrence pursuant to 15 CFR 

930.41(a), whereby a federal agency may 

presume concurrence if a response is 

not received within 60 days. 

4. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Impact 

This rule has been determined to be 

significant for purposes of Executive 

Order 12866. 

5. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

Assessment 

NOAA has concluded that this 

regulatory action does not have 

federalism implications sufficient to 

warrant preparation of a federalism 

assessment under Executive Order 

13132. These sanctuary regulations are 

intended only to supplement and 

complement existing state and local 

laws under the NMSA. 

6. 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 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 et seq.). In 

fulfilling its responsibilities under the 

NHPA, NOAA identified interested 

parties in addition to the State Historic 

Preservation Officer (SHPO), and has 

completed the identification of historic 

properties and the assessment of the 

effects of the undertaking on such 

properties in scheduled consultations 

with those identified parties and the 

SHPO. NOAA received a response from 

the SHPO, dated May 5, 2017, agreeing 

that the proposed undertaking will have 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
32752 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 118 / Wednesday, June 23, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

no adverse effect to one or more historic 

properties located within the project 

Area of Potential Effect. 

7. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

This analysis seeks to fulfill the 

requirements of Executive Order 12866 

and the Regulatory Flexibility Act. 

Small businesses that could potentially 

be impacted from the proposed 

prohibition on damaging a sanctuary 

resource include commercial fishing, 

recreational fishing and diving, scenic 

and sightseeing industries. The Chief 

Counsel for Regulation of the 

Department of Commerce certified to 

the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 

Small Business Administration (SBA) at 

the proposed rule stage that this rule 

would not have a significant impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

Although NOAA has made a few 

changes to the regulations from the 

proposed rule to the final rule, none of 

the changes alter the initial 

determination that this rule will not 

have an impact on small businesses 

included in the original analysis. NOAA 

also did not receive any comments on 

the certification or conclusions. 

Therefore, the determination that this 

rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities remains 

unchanged. As a result, a final 

regulatory flexibility analysis is not 

required and has not been prepared. 

8. Paperwork Reduction Act 

ONMS has a valid Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) control 

number (0648–0141) for the collection 

of public information related to the 

processing of ONMS permits across the 

National Marine Sanctuary System. 

NOAA’s designation of WSCNMS 

would likely result in an increase in the 

number of requests for ONMS general 

permits, special use permits, 

certifications, and authorizations 

because this action proposes to add 

general permits and special use permits, 

certifications, appeals, and the authority 

to authorize other valid federal, state, or 

local leases, permits, licenses, 

approvals, or other authorizations. An 

increase in the number of ONMS permit 

requests would require a change to the 

reporting burden certified for OMB 

control number 0648–0141. An update 

to this control number for the 

processing of ONMS permits will be 

requested as part of the renewal package 

for 0648–0141. 

Nationwide, NOAA issues 

approximately 500 national marine 

sanctuary permits each year. WSCNMS 

is expected to issue an additional 4 to 

5 permit requests per year. The public 

reporting burden for national marine 

sanctuaries permits is estimated to 

average 1.5 hours per response, 

including the time for reviewing 

instructions, searching existing data 

sources, gathering and maintaining the 

data needed, and completing and 

reviewing the collection of information. 

Comments on this determination were 

solicited in the proposed rule but 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. 

9. Sunken Military Craft Act 

The Sunken Military Craft Act of 2004 

(SMCA; Pub. L. 108–375, Title XIV, 

sections 1401 to 1408; 10 U.S.C. 113 

note) preserves and protects from 

unauthorized disturbance all sunken 

military craft that are owned by the 

United States government, as well as 

foreign sunken military craft that lie 

within United States waters, as defined 

in the SMCA, and other vessels owned 

or operated by a government on military 

non-commercial service when it sank. 

Thousands of U.S. sunken military craft 

lie in waters around the world, many 

accessible to looters, treasure hunters, 

and others who may cause damage to 

them. These craft, and their associated 

contents, represent a collection of nonrenewable and significant historical 

resources that often serve as war graves, 

carry unexploded ordnance, and contain 

oil and other hazardous materials. By 

protecting sunken military craft, the 

SMCA helps reduce the potential for 

irreversible harm to these nationally 

important historical and cultural 

resources. Regulations regarding permits 

for activities directed at sunken military 

craft under the jurisdiction of the 

Department of Navy can be found at 32 

CFR part 767. 

List of Subjects in 15 CFR Part 922 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Coastal zone, Historic 

preservation, Intergovernmental 

relations, Marine resources, Natural 

resources, Penalties, Recreation and 

recreation areas, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Wildlife. 

Nicole LeBoeuf, 

Acting Assistant Administrator for Ocean 

Services and Coastal Zone Management. 

Accordingly, for the reasons 

discussed in the preamble, the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration amends 15 CFR part 922 

as follows: 

PART 922—NATIONAL MARINE 

SANCTUARY PROGRAM 

REGULATIONS 

■ 1. The authority citation for 15 CFR 

part 922 continues to read as follows: 

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

■ 2. Revise § 922.1 to read as follows: 

§ 922.1 Applicability of regulations. 

Unless noted otherwise, the 

regulations in subparts A, D, and E of 

this part apply to all National Marine 

Sanctuaries and related site-specific 

regulations set forth in this part. 

Subparts B and C of this part apply to 

the sanctuary nomination process and to 

the designation of future Sanctuaries. 

■ 3. Amend § 922.3 by revising the 

definition of ‘‘Sanctuary resource’’ to 

read as follows: 

§ 922.3 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Sanctuary resource means any living 

or non-living resource of a National 

Marine Sanctuary that contributes to the 

conservation, recreational, ecological, 

historical, research, educational, or 

aesthetic value of the Sanctuary, 

including, but not limited to, the 

substratum of the area of the Sanctuary, 

other submerged features and the 

surrounding seabed, carbonate rock, 

corals and other bottom formations, 

coralline algae and other marine plants 

and algae, marine invertebrates, brineseep biota, phytoplankton, zooplankton, 

fish, seabirds, sea turtles and other 

marine reptiles, marine mammals and 

historical resources. For Thunder Bay 

National Marine Sanctuary and 

Underwater Preserve, Sanctuary 

resource means an underwater cultural 

resource as defined at § 922.191. For 

Mallows Bay-Potomac River National 

Marine Sanctuary, Sanctuary resource is 

defined at § 922.201(a). For Wisconsin 

Shipwreck Coast National Marine 

Sanctuary, sanctuary resource is defined 

at § 922.211. 

* * * * * 

■ 4. Revise § 922.44 to read as follows: 

§ 922.44 Emergency regulations. 

(a) 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 such activities are subject to 

immediate temporary regulation, 

including prohibition. 

(b) The provisions of this section do 

not apply to the following national 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 118 / Wednesday, June 23, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 32753 

marine sanctuaries with site-specific 

regulations that establish procedures for 

issuing emergency regulations: 

(1) Cordell Bank National Marine 

Sanctuary, § 922.112(e). 

(2) Florida Keys National Marine 

Sanctuary, § 922.165. 

(3) Hawaiian Islands Humpback 

Whale National Marine Sanctuary, 

§ 922.185. 

(4) Thunder Bay National Marine 

Sanctuary, § 922.196. 

(5) Mallows Bay-Potomac River 

National Marine Sanctuary, § 922.204. 

(6) Wisconsin Shipwreck Coast 

National Marine Sanctuary, § 922.214. 

■ 5. Amend § 922.47 by revising 

paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 922.47 Pre-existing authorizations or 

rights and certifications of pre-existing 

authorizations or rights. 

* * * * * 

(b) The prohibitions listed in subparts 

F through P and R through T of this part 

do not apply to any activity authorized 

by a valid lease, permit, license, 

approval or other authorization in 

existence on the effective date of 

Sanctuary designation, or in the case of 

Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary 

the effective date of the regulations in 

subpart P, and issued by any Federal, 

State or local authority of competent 

jurisdiction, or by any valid right of 

subsistence use or access in existence 

on the effective date of Sanctuary 

designation, or in the case of Florida 

Keys National Marine Sanctuary the 

effective date of the regulations in 

subpart P, provided that the holder of 

such authorization or right complies 

with certification procedures and 

criteria promulgated at the time of 

Sanctuary designation, or in the case of 

Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary 

the effective date of the regulations in 

subpart P, and with any terms and 

conditions on the exercise of such 

authorization or right imposed by the 

Director as a condition of certification as 

the Director deems necessary to achieve 

the purposes for which the Sanctuary 

was designated. 

■ 6. Revise § 922.48 to read as follows: 

§ 922.48 National Marine Sanctuary 

permits—application procedures and 

issuance criteria. 

(a) A person may conduct an activity 

prohibited by subparts F through O and 

S and T of this part, if conducted in 

accordance with the scope, purpose, 

terms and conditions of a permit issued 

under this section and subparts F 

through O and S and T, as appropriate. 

For Florida Keys National Marine 

Sanctuary, a person may conduct an 

activity prohibited by subpart P of this 

part if conducted in accordance with the 

scope, purpose, terms and conditions of 

a permit issued under § 922.166. For 

Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary 

and Underwater Preserve, a person may 

conduct an activity prohibited by 

subpart R of this part in accordance 

with the scope, purpose, terms and 

conditions of a permit issued under 

§ 922.195. 

(b) Applications for permits to 

conduct activities otherwise prohibited 

by subparts F through O and S and T of 

this part, should be addressed to the 

Director and sent to the address 

specified in subparts F through O of this 

part, or subparts R through T of this 

part, as appropriate. An application 

must include: 

(1) A detailed description of the 

proposed activity including a timetable 

for completion; 

(2) The equipment, personnel and 

methodology to be employed; 

(3) The qualifications and experience 

of all personnel; 

(4) The potential effects of the 

activity, if any, on Sanctuary resources 

and qualities; and 

(5) Copies of all other required 

licenses, permits, approvals or other 

authorizations. 

(c) Upon receipt of an application, the 

Director may request such additional 

information from the applicant as he or 

she deems necessary to act on the 

application and may seek the views of 

any persons or entity, within or outside 

the Federal government, and may hold 

a public hearing, as deemed 

appropriate. 

(d) The Director, at his or her 

discretion, may issue a permit, subject 

to such terms and conditions as he or 

she deems appropriate, to conduct a 

prohibited activity, in accordance with 

the criteria found in subparts F through 

O of this part, or subparts R through T 

of this part, as appropriate. The Director 

shall further impose, at a minimum, the 

conditions set forth in the relevant 

subpart. 

(e) A permit granted pursuant to this 

section is nontransferable. 

(f) The Director may amend, suspend, 

or revoke a permit issued pursuant to 

this section for good cause. The Director 

may deny a permit application pursuant 

to this section, in whole or in part, if it 

is determined that the permittee or 

applicant has acted in violation of the 

terms and conditions of a permit or of 

the regulations set forth in this section 

or subparts F through O of this part, or 

subparts R through T of this part or for 

other good cause. Any such action shall 

be communicated in writing to the 

permittee or applicant by certified mail 

and shall set forth the reason(s) for the 

action taken. Procedures governing 

permit sanctions and denials for 

enforcement reasons are set forth in 

subpart D of 15 CFR part 904. 

■ 7. Revise § 922.49 to read as follows: 

§ 922.49 Notification and review of 

applications for leases, licenses, permits, 

approvals, or other authorizations to 

conduct a prohibited activity. 

(a) A person may conduct an activity 

prohibited by subparts L through P of 

this part, or subparts R through T of this 

part, if such activity is specifically 

authorized by any valid Federal, State, 

or local lease, permit, license, approval, 

or other authorization issued after the 

effective date of Sanctuary designation, 

or in the case of Florida Keys National 

Marine Sanctuary after the effective date 

of the regulations in subpart P, provided 

that: 

(1) The applicant notifies the Director, 

in writing, of the application for such 

authorization (and of any application for 

an amendment, renewal, or extension of 

such authorization) within fifteen (15) 

days of the date of filing of the 

application or the effective date of 

Sanctuary designation, or in the case of 

Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary 

the effective date of the regulations in 

subpart P, whichever is later; 

(2) The applicant complies with the 

other provisions of this section; 

(3) The Director notifies the applicant 

and authorizing agency that he or she 

does not object to issuance of the 

authorization (or amendment, renewal, 

or extension); and 

(4) The applicant complies with any 

terms and conditions the Director deems 

reasonably necessary to protect 

Sanctuary resources and qualities. 

(b) Any potential applicant for an 

authorization described in paragraph (a) 

of this section may request the Director 

to issue a finding as to whether the 

activity for which an application is 

intended to be made is prohibited by 

subparts L through P of this part, or 

subparts R through T of this part, as 

appropriate. 

(c) Notification of filings of 

applications should be sent to the 

Director, Office of National Marine 

Sanctuaries at the address specified in 

subparts L through P of this part, or 

subparts R through T of this part, as 

appropriate. A copy of the application 

must accompany the notification. 

(d) The Director may request 

additional information from the 

applicant as he or she deems reasonably 

necessary to determine whether to 

object to issuance of an authorization 

described in paragraph (a) of this 

section, or what terms and conditions 

are reasonably necessary to protect 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
32754 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 118 / Wednesday, June 23, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

Sanctuary resources and qualities. The 

information requested must be received 

by the Director within 45 days of the 

postmark date of the request. The 

Director may seek the views of any 

persons on the application. 

(e) The Director shall notify, in 

writing, the agency to which application 

has been made of his or her pending 

review of the application and possible 

objection to issuance. Upon completion 

of review of the application and 

information received with respect 

thereto, the Director shall notify both 

the agency and applicant, in writing, 

whether he or she has an objection to 

issuance and what terms and conditions 

he or she deems reasonably necessary to 

protect Sanctuary resources and 

qualities, and reasons therefor. 

(f) The Director may amend the terms 

and conditions deemed reasonably 

necessary to protect Sanctuary resources 

and qualities whenever additional 

information becomes available justifying 

such an amendment. 

(g) Any time limit prescribed in or 

established under this section may be 

extended by the Director for good cause. 

(h) The applicant may appeal any 

objection by, or terms or conditions 

imposed by the Director to the Assistant 

Administrator or designee in accordance 

with the provisions of § 922.50. 

■ 8. Revise § 922.50 to read as follows: 

§ 922.50 Appeals of administrative action. 

(a)(1) Except for permit actions taken 

for enforcement reasons (see subpart D 

of 15 CFR part 904 for applicable 

procedures), an applicant for, or a 

holder of, a National Marine Sanctuary 

permit; an applicant for, or a holder of, 

a Special Use permit issued pursuant to 

section 310 of the Act; a person 

requesting certification of an existing 

lease, permit, license or right of 

subsistence use or access under 

§ 922.47; or, for those Sanctuaries 

described in subparts L through P and 

R through T of this part, an applicant for 

a lease, permit, license or other 

authorization issued by any Federal, 

State, or local authority of competent 

jurisdiction (hereinafter appellant) may 

appeal to the Assistant Administrator: 

(i) The granting, denial, conditioning, 

amendment, suspension or revocation 

by the Director of a National Marine 

Sanctuary or Special Use permit; 

(ii) The conditioning, amendment, 

suspension or revocation of a 

certification under § 922.47; or 

(iii) For those Sanctuaries described 

in subparts L through P and subpart R 

through T, the objection to issuance of 

or the imposition of terms and 

conditions on a lease, permit, license or 

other authorization issued by any 

Federal, State, or local authority of 

competent jurisdiction. 

(2) For those National Marine 

Sanctuaries described in subparts F 

through K and S and T of this part, any 

interested person may also appeal the 

same actions described in paragraphs 

(a)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section. For 

appeals arising from actions taken with 

respect to these National Marine 

Sanctuaries, the term ‘‘appellant’’ 

includes any such interested persons. 

(b) An appeal under paragraph (a) of 

this section must be in writing, state the 

action(s) by the Director appealed and 

the reason(s) for the appeal, and be 

received within 30 days of receipt of 

notice of the action by the Director. 

Appeals should be addressed to the 

Assistant Administrator for Ocean 

Services and Coastal Zone Management, 

NOAA 1305 East-West Highway, 13th 

Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20910. 

(c)(1) The Assistant Administrator 

may request the appellant to submit 

such information as the Assistant 

Administrator deems necessary in order 

for him or her to decide the appeal. The 

information requested must be received 

by the Assistant Administrator within 

45 days of the postmark date of the 

request. The Assistant Administrator 

may seek the views of any other 

persons. For Monitor National Marine 

Sanctuary, if the appellant has 

requested a hearing, the Assistant 

Administrator shall grant an informal 

hearing. For all other National Marine 

Sanctuaries, the Assistant Administrator 

may determine whether to hold an 

informal hearing on the appeal. If the 

Assistant Administrator determines that 

an informal hearing should be held, the 

Assistant Administrator may designate 

an officer before whom the hearing shall 

be held. 

(2) The hearing officer shall give 

notice in the Federal Register of the 

time, place and subject matter of the 

hearing. The appellant and the Director 

may appear personally or by counsel at 

the hearing and submit such material 

and present such arguments as deemed 

appropriate by the hearing officer. 

Within 60 days after the record for the 

hearing closes, the hearing officer shall 

recommend a decision in writing to the 

Assistant Administrator. 

(d) The Assistant Administrator shall 

decide the appeal using the same 

regulatory criteria as for the initial 

decision and shall base the appeal 

decision on the record before the 

Director and any information submitted 

regarding the appeal, and, if a hearing 

has been held, on the record before the 

hearing officer and the hearing officer’s 

recommended decision. The Assistant 

Administrator shall notify the appellant 

of the final decision and the reason(s) 

therefore in writing. The Assistant 

Administrator’s decision shall 

constitute final agency action for the 

purpose of the Administrative 

Procedure Act. 

(e) Any time limit prescribed in or 

established under this section other 

than the 30-day limit for filing an appeal 

may be extended by the Assistant 

Administrator or hearing office for good 

cause. 

■ 9. Add subpart T to read as follows: 

Subpart T—Wisconsin Shipwreck 

Coast National Marine Sanctuary 

Sec. 

922.210 Boundary. 

922.211 Definitions. 

922.212 Co-management. 

922.213 Prohibited or otherwise regulated 

activities. 

922.214 Emergency regulations. 

922.215 Permit procedures and review 

criteria. 

922.216 Certification of preexisting leases, 

licenses, permits, approvals, other 

authorizations, or rights to conduct a 

prohibited activity. 

Appendix A to Subpart T of Part 922— 

Wisconsin Shipwreck Coast National 

Marine Sanctuary Boundary Description 

and Coordinates of the Lateral Boundary 

Closures and Excluded Areas 

Appendix B to Subpart T of Part 922— 

Wisconsin Shipwreck Coast Marine 

Sanctuary Terms of Designation 

§ 922.210 Boundary. 

Wisconsin Shipwreck Coast National 

Marine Sanctuary consists of an area of 

approximately 726 square nautical miles 

(962 square miles) of Lake Michigan 

waters within the State of Wisconsin 

and the submerged lands thereunder, 

over, around, and under the submerged 

underwater cultural resources in Lake 

Michigan. The precise boundary 

coordinates are listed in Appendix A to 

this subpart. The eastern boundary of 

the sanctuary begins approximately 9.3 

miles east of the Wisconsin shoreline (as 

defined by the low water datum) in Lake 

Michigan at Point 1 north of the border 

between Manitowoc and Kewaunee 

County. From Point 1 the boundary 

continues SSW in a straight line to Point 

2 and then SW to Point 3 which is 

located in Lake Michigan approximately 

16.3 miles east of a point on the 

shoreline roughly equidistant between 

the borders of northern Mequon, WI and 

southern Port Washington, WI. From 

Point 3 the boundary continues west 

towards Point 4 until it intersects the 

shoreline at the low water datum 

approximately 2.5 miles north of the 

northern border of Mequon, WI. From 

this intersection the boundary continues 

north following the shoreline at the low 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 118 / Wednesday, June 23, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 32755 

water datum, cutting across the mouths 

of creeks and streams until it intersects 

the line segment formed between Point 

5 and Point 6 at the end of the southern 

breakwater at the mouth of Sauk Creek 

at Port Washington. From this 

intersection the boundary continues to 

Point 6 through Point 9 in numerical 

order. From Point 9 the boundary 

continues towards Point 10 until it 

intersects the shoreline at the low water 

datum at the end of the northern 

breakwater at the mouth of Sauk Creek. 

From this intersection the boundary 

continues north following the shoreline 

at the low water datum cutting across 

the mouths of creeks and streams until 

it intersects the line segment formed 

between Point 11 and Point 12 at the 

end of the southern breakwater at the 

mouth of the Sheboygan River. From 

this intersection the boundary continues 

to Point 12 through Point 17 in 

numerical order. 

From Point 17 the boundary 

continues towards Point 18 until it 

intersects the shoreline at the low water 

datum at the end of the northern 

breakwater at the mouth of the 

Sheboygan River. From this intersection 

the boundary continues north along the 

shoreline at the low water datum cutting 

across the mouths of creeks and streams 

until it intersects the line segment 

formed between Point 19 and Point 20 

at the end of the southern breakwater at 

the mouth of Manitowoc Harbor. From 

this intersection the boundary continues 

to Point 20 through Point 23 in 

numerical order. From Point 23 the 

boundary continues towards Point 24 

until it intersects the shoreline at the 

low water datum at the end of the 

northern breakwater at the mouth of the 

Sheboygan River. From this intersection 

the boundary continues north following 

the shoreline at the low water datum 

cutting across the mouths of creeks and 

streams until it intersects the line 

segment formed between Point 25 and 

Point 26 at the end of the western 

breakwater at the mouth of East Twin 

River. From this intersection the 

boundary continues to Point 27 through 

Point 31 in numerical order. 

From Point 31 the boundary 

continues towards Point 32 until it 

intersects the shoreline at the low water 

datum at the end of the eastern 

breakwater at the mouth of East Twin 

River. From this intersection the 

boundary continues NE following the 

shoreline at the low water datum cutting 

across the mouths of creeks and streams 

around Rawley Point and then 

continues NNW past the county border 

between Manitowoc and Kewaunee 

County until it intersects the line 

segment formed between Point 33 and 

Point 34 along the shoreline at the low 

water datum just south of the mouth of 

the unnamed stream near the 

intersection of Sandy Bar Road and 

Lakeview Road near Carlton, WI. 

Finally, from this intersection at the 

shoreline at the low water datum the 

boundary moves east across Lake 

Michigan to Point 34. 

§ 922.211 Definitions. 

(a) The following terms are defined 

for purposes of this subpart: 

(1) Sanctuary resource means all 

prehistoric, historic, archaeological, and 

cultural sites and artifacts within the 

sanctuary boundary, including all 

shipwreck sites. 

(2) Shipwreck site means any historic 

sunken watercraft, its components, 

cargo, contents, and associated debris 

field. 

(b) All other terms appearing in the 

regulations in this subpart are defined at 

§ 922.3, and/or in the Marine Protection, 

Research, and Sanctuaries Act, as 

amended, 33 U.S.C. 1401 et seq., and 16 

U.S.C. 1431 et seq. 

§ 922.212 Co-management. 

NOAA has primary responsibility for 

the management of the Sanctuary 

pursuant to the Act. However, as the 

Sanctuary is in state waters, NOAA will 

co-manage the Sanctuary in 

collaboration with the State of 

Wisconsin. The Director may enter into 

a Memorandum of Agreement regarding 

this collaboration that may address, but 

not be limited to, such aspects as areas 

of mutual concern, including Sanctuary 

resource protection, programs, 

permitting, activities, development, and 

threats to Sanctuary resources. 

§ 922.213 Prohibited or otherwise 

regulated activities. 

(a) Except as specified in paragraph 

(b) of this section, the following 

activities are prohibited and thus are 

unlawful for any person to conduct or 

to cause to be conducted: 

(1) Moving, removing, recovering, 

altering, destroying, possessing, or 

otherwise injuring, or attempting to 

move, remove, recover, alter, destroy, 

possess or otherwise injure a sanctuary 

resource. 

(2) Grappling into or anchoring on 

shipwreck sites. 

(3) 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 any permit issued under the Act. 

(b) The prohibitions in paragraphs 

(a)(1) through (3) of this section do not 

apply to any activity necessary to 

respond to an emergency threatening 

life, property, or the environment; or to 

activities necessary for valid law 

enforcement purposes. 

§ 922.214 Emergency regulations. 

(a) Where necessary to prevent or 

minimize the destruction of, loss of, or 

injury to a Sanctuary resource, or to 

minimize the imminent risk of such 

destruction, loss, or injury, any and all 

activities are subject to immediate 

temporary regulation, including 

prohibition. An emergency regulation 

shall not take effect without the 

approval of the Governor of Wisconsin 

or her/his designee or designated 

agency. 

(b) Emergency regulations remain in 

effect until a date fixed in the rule or six 

months after the effective date, 

whichever is earlier. The rule may be 

extended once for not more than six 

months. 

§ 922.215 Permit procedures and review 

criteria. 

(a) Authority to issue general permits. 

The Director may allow a person to 

conduct an activity that would 

otherwise be prohibited by this subpart, 

through issuance of a general permit, 

provided the applicant complies with: 

(1) The provisions of subpart E of this 

part; and 

(2) The relevant site specific 

regulations appearing in this subpart. 

(b) Sanctuary general permit 

categories. The Director may issue a 

sanctuary general permit under this 

subpart, subject to such terms and 

conditions as he or she deems 

appropriate, if the Director finds that the 

proposed activity falls within one of the 

following categories: 

(1) Research—activities that constitute 

scientific research on or scientific 

monitoring of national marine sanctuary 

resources or qualities; 

(2) Education—activities that enhance 

public awareness, understanding, or 

appreciation of a national marine 

sanctuary or national marine sanctuary 

resources or qualities; or 

(3) Management—activities that assist 

in managing a national marine 

sanctuary. 

(c) Review criteria. The Director shall 

not issue a permit under this subpart, 

unless he or she also finds that: 

(1) The proposed activity will be 

conducted in a manner compatible with 

the primary objective of protection of 

national marine sanctuary resources and 

qualities, taking into account the 

following factors: 

(i) The extent to which the conduct of 

the activity may diminish or enhance 

national marine sanctuary resources and 

qualities; and 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
32756 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 118 / Wednesday, June 23, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

(ii) Any indirect, secondary or 

cumulative effects of the activity. 

(2) It is necessary to conduct the 

proposed activity within the national 

marine sanctuary to achieve its stated 

purpose. 

(3) The methods and procedures 

proposed by the applicant are 

appropriate to achieve the proposed 

activity’s stated purpose and eliminate, 

minimize, or mitigate adverse effects on 

sanctuary resources and qualities as 

much as possible. 

(4) The duration of the proposed 

activity and its effects are no longer than 

necessary to achieve the activity’s stated 

purpose. 

(5) The expected end value of the 

activity to the furtherance of national 

marine sanctuary goals and purposes 

outweighs any potential adverse 

impacts on sanctuary resources and 

qualities from the conduct of the 

activity. 

(6) The applicant is professionally 

qualified to conduct and complete the 

proposed activity. 

(7) The applicant has adequate 

financial resources available to conduct 

and complete the proposed activity and 

terms and conditions of the permit. 

(8) There are no other factors that 

would make the issuance of a permit for 

the activity inappropriate. 

§ 922.216 Certification of preexisting 

leases, licenses, permits, approvals, other 

authorizations, or rights to conduct a 

prohibited activity. 

(a) A person may conduct an activity 

prohibited by § 922.213(a)(1) through (3) 

if such activity is specifically authorized 

by a valid Federal, state, or local lease, 

permit, license, approval, or other 

authorization, or tribal right of 

subsistence use or access in existence 

prior to the effective date of sanctuary 

designation and within the sanctuary 

designated area and complies with 

§ 922.47 and provided that the holder of 

the lease, permit, license, approval, or 

other authorization complies with the 

requirements of paragraph (e) of this 

section. 

(b) In considering whether to make 

the certifications called for in this 

section, the Director may seek and 

consider the views of any other person 

or entity, within or outside the Federal 

government, and may hold a public 

hearing as deemed appropriate. 

(c) The Director may amend, suspend, 

or revoke any certification made under 

this section whenever continued 

operation would otherwise be 

inconsistent with any terms or 

conditions of the certification. Any such 

action shall be forwarded in writing to 

both the holder of the certified permit, 

license, or other authorization and the 

issuing agency and shall set forth 

reason(s) for the action taken. 

(d) Requests for findings or 

certifications should be addressed to the 

Director, Office of National Marine 

Sanctuaries; ATTN: Sanctuary 

Superintendent, Wisconsin Shipwreck 

Coast National Marine Sanctuary, 1305 

East-West Hwy., 11th Floor, Silver 

Spring, MD 20910. A copy of the lease, 

permit, license, approval, or other 

authorization must accompany the 

request. 

(e) For an activity described in 

paragraph (a) of this section, the holder 

of the authorization or right may 

conduct the activity prohibited by 

§ 922.213(a)(1) through (3) provided 

that: 

(1) The holder of such authorization 

or right notifies the Director, in writing, 

180 days of the Federal Register 

document announcing of effective date 

of the Sanctuary designation, of the 

existence of such authorization or right 

and requests certification of such 

authorization or right; 

(2) The holder complies with the 

other provisions of this section; and 

(3) The holder complies with any 

terms and conditions on the exercise of 

such authorization or right imposed as 

a condition of certification, by the 

Director, to achieve the purposes for 

which the Sanctuary was designated. 

(f) The holder of an authorization or 

right described in paragraph (a) of this 

section authorizing an activity 

prohibited by § 922.213 may conduct 

the activity without being in violation of 

applicable provisions of § 922.213, 

pending final agency action on his or 

her certification request, provided the 

holder is otherwise in compliance with 

this section. 

(g) The Director may request 

additional information from the 

certification requester as he or she 

deems reasonably necessary to 

condition appropriately the exercise of 

the certified authorization or right to 

achieve the purposes for which the 

Sanctuary was designated. The Director 

must receive the information requested 

within 45 days of the postmark date of 

the request. The Director may seek the 

views of any persons on the certification 

request. 

(h) The Director may amend any 

certification made under this section 

whenever additional information 

becomes available that he/she 

determines justifies such an 

amendment. 

(i) Upon completion of review of the 

authorization or right and information 

received with respect thereto, the 

Director shall communicate, in writing, 

any decision on a certification request 

or any action taken with respect to any 

certification made under this section, in 

writing, to both the holder of the 

certified lease, permit, license, approval, 

other authorization, or right, and the 

issuing agency, and shall set forth the 

reason(s) for the decision or action 

taken. 

(j) The holder may appeal any action 

conditioning, amending, suspending, or 

revoking any certification in accordance 

with the procedures set forth in 

§ 922.50. 

(k) Any time limit prescribed in or 

established under this section may be 

extended by the Director for good cause. 

Appendix A to Subpart T of Part 922— 

Wisconsin Shipwreck Coast Sanctuary 

Boundary Description and Coordinates 

of the Lateral Boundary Closures and 

Excluded Areas 

Coordinates listed in this appendix are 

unprojected (Geographic) and based on the 

North American Datum of 1983. 

TABLE A1—COORDINATES FOR

SANCTUARY BOUNDARY

Point_ID Latitude Longitude 

1 ................ 44.35279 ¥87.34387 

2 ................ 43.45716 ¥87.48817 

3 ................ 43.31519 ¥87.56312 

4 * .............. 43.31519 ¥87.88828 

5 * .............. 43.38447 ¥87.86079 

6 ................ 43.38455 ¥87.86062 

7 ................ 43.38353 ¥87.85936 

8 ................ 43.38588 ¥87.85801 

9 ................ 43.38510 ¥87.85950 

10 * ............ 43.38523 ¥87.85963 

11 * ............ 43.74858 ¥87.69479 

12 .............. 43.74858 ¥87.69457 

13 .............. 43.74840 ¥87.69457 

14 .............. 43.74778 ¥87.69191 

15 .............. 43.74949 ¥87.69161 

16 .............. 43.74977 ¥87.69196 

17 .............. 43.74935 ¥87.69251 

18 * ............ 43.74946 ¥87.69265 

19 * ............ 44.09135 ¥87.64377 

20 .............. 44.09147 ¥87.64366 

21 .............. 44.09081 ¥87.64206 

22 .............. 44.09319 ¥87.64202 

23 .............. 44.09254 ¥87.64365 

24 * ............ 44.09262 ¥87.64373 

25 * ............ 44.14226 ¥87.56161 

26 .............. 44.14214 ¥87.56151 

27 .............. 44.14199 ¥87.56181 

28 .............. 44.13946 ¥87.55955 

29 .............. 44.14021 ¥87.55795 

30 .............. 44.14274 ¥87.56023 

31 .............. 44.14256 ¥87.56059 

32 * ............ 44.14267 ¥87.56069 

33 * ............ 44.35279 ¥87.53255 

34 .............. 44.35279 ¥87.34387 

Note: The coordinates in the table above 

marked with an asterisk (*) are not a part of 

the sanctuary boundary. These coordinates 

are landward reference points used to draw a 

line segment that intersects with the shoreline 

at the low water datum. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 118 / Wednesday, June 23, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 32757 

Appendix B to Subpart T of Part 922— 

Wisconsin Shipwreck Coast National 

Marine Sanctuary Terms of Designation 

Terms of Designation for Wisconsin 

Shipwreck Coast National Marine Sanctuary 

Under the authority of the National Marine 

Sanctuaries Act, as amended (the ‘‘Act’’ or 

‘‘NMSA’’), 16 U.S.C. 1431 et seq., 962 square 

miles of Lake Michigan off the coast of 

Wisconsin’s coastal counties of Ozaukee, 

Sheboygan, Manitowoc, and Kewaunee are 

hereby designated as a National Marine 

Sanctuary for the purpose of providing longterm protection and management of the 

historical resources and recreational, 

research, educational, and aesthetic qualities 

of the area. 

Article I: Effect of Designation 

The NMSA authorizes the issuance of such 

regulations as are necessary and reasonable 

to implement the designation, including 

managing and protecting the historical 

resources and recreational, research, and 

educational qualities of Wisconsin 

Shipwreck Coast National Marine Sanctuary 

(the ‘‘Sanctuary’’). Section 1 of Article IV of 

this Designation Document lists those 

activities that may have to be regulated on 

the effective date of designation, or at some 

later date, in order to protect Sanctuary 

resources and qualities. Listing an activity 

does not necessarily mean that it 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 Sanctuary designation was 

made. 

Article II: Description of the Area 

Wisconsin Shipwreck Coast National 

Marine Sanctuary consists of an area of 

approximately 726 square nautical miles (962 

square miles) of Lake Michigan waters within 

the State of Wisconsin and the submerged 

lands thereunder, over, around, and under 

the underwater cultural resources in Lake 

Michigan. The eastern boundary of the 

sanctuary begins approximately 9.3 miles 

east of the Wisconsin shoreline in Lake 

Michigan north of the border between 

Manitowoc and Kewaunee County. From this 

point the boundary continues in Lake 

Michigan roughly to the SSW until it 

intersects a point in Lake Michigan 

approximately 16.3 miles east of a point 

along the shoreline that is approximately 

equidistant between the borders of Mequon, 

WI and Port Washington, WI. The southern 

boundary continues west until it intersects 

the shoreline at the Low Water Datum at this 

point between Mequon, WI and Port 

Washington, WI. The western boundary 

continues north following the shoreline at 

the Low Water Datum for approximately 82 

miles cutting across the mouths of rivers, 

creeks, and streams and excluding federally 

authorized shipping channels; specifically 

those of Sauk Creek at Port Washington, 

Sheboygan River at Sheboygan, Manitowoc 

Harbor as Manitowoc, and East Twin River 

at Two Rivers. The western boundary ends 

just north of the border between Manitowoc 

and Kewaunee County along the shoreline 

near Carlton, WI. The northern boundary 

continues from the shoreline at the Low 

Water Datum at this point east across Lake 

Michigan just north of the border between 

these same two counties back to its point of 

origin approximately 9.3 miles offshore. 

Article III: Special Characteristics of the 

Area 

The area includes a nationally significant 

collection of maritime heritage resources, 

including 36 known shipwrecks, about 59 

suspected shipwrecks, and other underwater 

cultural sites. The historic shipwrecks are 

representative of the vessels that sailed and 

steamed on Lake Michigan during the 

nineteenth and twentieth centuries, carrying 

grain and raw materials east and carrying 

coal, manufactured goods, and people west. 

During this period entrepreneurs and 

shipbuilders on the Great Lakes launched 

tens of thousands of ships of many different 

designs. Sailing schooners, grand palace 

steamers, revolutionary propeller-driven 

passenger ships, and industrial bulk carriers 

transported America’s business and industry. 

In the process they brought hundreds of 

thousands of people to the Midwest and 

made possible the dramatic growth of the 

region’s farms, cities, and industries. The 

Midwest, and indeed the American nation, 

could not have developed with such speed 

and with such vast economic and social 

consequences without the Great Lakes. 

Twenty-one of the 36 shipwreck sites in the 

sanctuary are listed on the National Register 

of Historic Places. Many of the shipwrecks 

retain an unusual degree of architectural 

integrity, with several vessels nearly intact. 

Well preserved by Lake Michigan’s cold, 

fresh water, the shipwrecks and related 

maritime heritage sites in Wisconsin 

Shipwreck Coast National Marine Sanctuary 

possess exceptional historical, archaeological 

and recreational value. Additional 

underwater cultural resources, such as 

submerged aircraft, docks, piers, and isolated 

artifacts also exist, as do the potential for 

prehistoric sites and artifacts. 

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 historical 

resources and recreational, research and 

educational qualities of the area: 

a. Injuring sanctuary resources. 

b. Grappling into or anchoring on a 

shipwreck sites. 

c. 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 issued under the Act. 

Section 2. Emergencies. 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 activity, 

including those not listed in Section 1, is 

subject to immediate temporary regulation. 

An emergency regulation shall not take effect 

without the approval of the Governor of 

Wisconsin or her/his designee or designated 

agency. 

Article V: Relation to Other Regulatory 

Programs 

Fishing Regulations, Licenses, and Permits. 

Fishing in the Sanctuary shall not be 

regulated as part of the Sanctuary 

management regime authorized by the Act. 

However, fishing in the Sanctuary may be 

regulated by other Federal, State, Tribal and 

local authorities of competent jurisdiction, 

and designation of the Sanctuary shall have 

no effect on any regulation, permit, or license 

issued thereunder. 

Article VI. Alteration of This Designation 

The terms of designation may be modified 

only by the same procedures by which the 

original designation is made, including 

public meetings, consultation according to 

the NMSA. 

§ 922.213 [Amended] 

■ 10. Stay § 922.213(a)(2) until October 

1, 2023. 

[FR Doc. 2021–12846 Filed 6–22–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–NK–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

15 CFR Chapter VII 

[Docket Number: 210617–0132] 

RIN 0605–XD009 

Rescission of Identification of 

Prohibited Transactions With Respect 

to TikTok and WeChat 

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, U.S. 

Department of Commerce. 

ACTION: Identification of Prohibited 

Transactions; notification of rescission. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Executive Order 

14034 of June 9, 2021 (Protecting 

Americans’ Sensitive Data from Foreign 

Adversaries), this document confirms 

that the Secretary of Commerce has 

rescinded two actions issued under 

now-revoked Executive Orders: The 

September 18, 2020 Identification of 

Prohibited Transactions related to 

TikTok, published on September 24, 

2020, and the September 18, 2020 

Identification of Prohibited Transactions 

related to WeChat filed for public 

inspection on September 18, 2020 and 

withdrawn before publication. 

DATES: This rescission was effective 

June 16, 2021. Effective June 23, 2021, 

the Department withdraws the 

Identification of Prohibited Transactions 

published at 85 FR 60061 on September 

24, 2020. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

John Gifft, U.S. Department of 

Commerce; email: supplychainrules@

doc.gov; telephone: (202) 482–2617. 

For media inquiries: Brittany Caplin, 

Deputy Director of Public Affairs and 

Press Secretary, U.S. Department of 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES