[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 118 (Wednesday, June 23, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 32737-32757]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-12846]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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/days-in-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 Sec.  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

[[Page 32738]]

National Marine Sanctuaries at 920-459-4425, [email protected], 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-be-discovered 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%20Shipwrecks.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

[[Page 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=NOAA-NOS-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

[[Page 32740]]

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 co-management 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 site-specific 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 co-management 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. Sec.  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

[[Page 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 Sec.  922.44 to include WSCNMS in 
the list of sanctuaries that have site-specific regulations related to 
emergency regulations, and adds detailed site-specific emergency 
regulations to the WSCNMS regulations at Sec.  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 Sec.  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 pre-existing 
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 Sec.  922.213. As such, NOAA is amending the regulatory 
text at Sec.  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

[[Page 32742]]

 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 Sec.  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

[[Page 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 all-time 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

[[Page 32744]]

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 no-anchoring 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

[[Page 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

[[Page 32746]]

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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 non-regulatory 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.

[[Page 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 co-management 
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

[[Page 32748]]

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 co-management 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 co-management 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 two-year 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 sanctuary-
maintained moorings (see previous comment). Consequently, NOAA is 
considering allowing users to apply for a sanctuary permit to tie a 
suitable long-term 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 sanctuary-maintained 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.

[[Page 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

[[Page 32750]]

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 co-managers 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 in-kind 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

[[Page 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

[[Page 32752]]

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 non-renewable 
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

0
1. The authority citation for 15 CFR part 922 continues to read as 
follows:

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


0
2. Revise Sec.  922.1 to read as follows:


Sec.  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.

0
3. Amend Sec.  922.3 by revising the definition of ``Sanctuary 
resource'' to read as follows:


Sec.  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, brine-seep 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 Sec.  922.191. For Mallows Bay-Potomac River 
National Marine Sanctuary, Sanctuary resource is defined at Sec.  
922.201(a). For Wisconsin Shipwreck Coast National Marine Sanctuary, 
sanctuary resource is defined at Sec.  922.211.
* * * * *

0
4. Revise Sec.  922.44 to read as follows:


Sec.  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

[[Page 32753]]

marine sanctuaries with site-specific regulations that establish 
procedures for issuing emergency regulations:
    (1) Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuary, Sec.  922.112(e).
    (2) Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, Sec.  922.165.
    (3) Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary, 
Sec.  922.185.
    (4) Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary, Sec.  922.196.
    (5) Mallows Bay-Potomac River National Marine Sanctuary, Sec.  
922.204.
    (6) Wisconsin Shipwreck Coast National Marine Sanctuary, Sec.  
922.214.

0
5. Amend Sec.  922.47 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:


Sec.  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.

0
6. Revise Sec.  922.48 to read as follows:


Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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.

0
7. Revise Sec.  922.49 to read as follows:


Sec.  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

[[Page 32754]]

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 Sec.  922.50.

0
8. Revise Sec.  922.50 to read as follows:


Sec.  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 Sec.  
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 Sec.  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.

0
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


Sec.  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

[[Page 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.


Sec.  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 Sec.  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.


Sec.  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.


Sec.  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.


Sec.  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.


Sec.  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

[[Page 32756]]

    (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.


Sec.  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 Sec.  
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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  922.213 
may conduct the activity without being in violation of applicable 
provisions of Sec.  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 Sec.  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.


[[Page 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 long-term 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.


Sec.  922.213   [Amended]

0
10. Stay Sec.  922.213(a)(2) until October 1, 2023.

[FR Doc. 2021-12846 Filed 6-22-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-NK-P