0648-BD20 Final Rule Re-Establishing the Sanctuary Nomination Process

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 114 / Friday, June 13, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
establishing Class E airspace extending
upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 7-mile radius of Crandon/Steve
Conway Municipal Airport, Crandon,
WI, for new standard instrument
approach procedures developed at the
airport. Controlled airspace is needed
for the safety and management of IFR
operations at the airport.
The FAA has determined that this
regulation only involves an established
body of technical regulations for which
frequent and routine amendments are
necessary to keep them operationally
current. Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is
not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’
under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not
a ‘‘significant rule’’ under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44
FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3)
does not warrant preparation of a
regulatory evaluation as the anticipated
impact is so minimal. Since this is a
routine matter that only affects air traffic
procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when
promulgated, does not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA’s authority to issue rules
regarding aviation safety is found in
Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1,
Section 106, describes the authority of
the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more
detail the scope of the agency’s
authority. This rulemaking is
promulgated under the authority
described in Subtitle VII, Part A,
Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that
section, the FAA is charged with
prescribing regulations to assign the use
of airspace necessary to ensure the
safety of aircraft and the efficient use of
airspace. This regulation is within the
scope of that authority as it establishes
controlled airspace at Crandon/Steve
Conway Municipal, Crandon, WI.

Adoption of the Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the
Federal Aviation Administration
amends 14 CFR Part 71 as follows:
PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A,
B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND
REPORTING POINTS
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR
Part 71 continues to read as follows:

■

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113,
40120; E. O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–
1963 Comp., p. 389.
§ 71.1

[Amended]

2. The incorporation by reference in
14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal Aviation
Administration Order 7400.9X, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points,
dated August 7, 2013, and effective
September 15, 2013, is amended as
follows:

■

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas
extending upward from 700 feet or more
above the surface.

*

*

*

*

*

AGL WI E5 Crandon, WI [New]
Crandon/Steve Conway Municipal Airport,
WI
(lat. 45°31′22″ N., long. 88°55′42″ W.)
That airspace extending upward from 700
feet above the surface within a 7-mile radius
of Crandon/Steve Conway Municipal Airport.
Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on June 2,
2014.
Humberto Melendez,
Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO
Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2014–13777 Filed 6–12–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–14–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Environmental Review
The FAA has determined that this
action qualifies for categorical exclusion
under the National Environmental
Policy Act in accordance with FAA
Order 1050.1E, ‘‘Environmental
Impacts: Policies and Procedures,’’
paragraph 311a. This airspace action is
not expected to cause any potentially
significant environmental impacts, and
no extraordinary circumstances exist
that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71
Airspace, Incorporation by reference,
Navigation (Air).

VerDate Mar<15>2010

16:24 Jun 12, 2014

Jkt 232001

15 CFR Part 922
[Docket No. 130405334–3717–02]
RIN 0648–BD20

Re-Establishing the Sanctuary
Nomination Process
Office of National Marine
Sanctuaries (ONMS), National Ocean
Service, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Department of Commerce (DOC).
ACTION: Final rule and call for
nominations.
AGENCY:

With this final rule, NOAA reestablishes the process by which

SUMMARY:

PO 00000

Frm 00003

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

33851

communities may submit applications
to have NOAA consider nominations of
areas of the marine and Great Lakes
environments as national marine
sanctuaries. Communities, in this
context, are defined as a collection of
interested individuals or groups (e.g., a
friends of group, a chamber of
commerce); local, tribal, state, or
national agencies; elected officials; or
topic-based stakeholder groups, at the
local, regional or national level (e.g., a
local chapter of an environmental
organization, a regionally-based fishing
group, a national-level recreation or
tourism organization, academia or
science-based group, or an industry
association). Through this nomination
process, NOAA is seeking to give
communities an opportunity to identify
special marine and Great Lakes areas
they believe would benefit from
designation as a national marine
sanctuary. There is no requirement for
who may nominate an area for
consideration; however, nominations
should demonstrate broad support from
a variety of stakeholders and interested
parties. This rule contains the criteria
and considerations NOAA will use to
evaluate national marine sanctuary
nominations, describes the process for
submitting national marine sanctuary
nominations, and promulgates the
regulations necessary to implement this
action. If NOAA determines a
nomination adequately meets the final
criteria and considerations, it may place
that nomination into an inventory of
areas for the NOAA Administrator, as
delegated from the Secretary of
Commerce, to consider for designation
as a national marine sanctuary. As such,
NOAA is not designating any new
national marine sanctuaries with this
action. In issuing this rule, NOAA
replaces the currently inactive Site
Evaluation List with a new process for
communities and other interested
parties to work collaboratively and
innovatively in their submission of
national marine sanctuary nominations.
The re-opening of the sanctuary
nomination process was supported by
the majority of the nearly 18,000
comments NOAA received on its
proposed rule issued June 28, 2013.
This final rule is effective on July
14, 2014.

DATES:

You may submit
nominations to NOAA by any one of the
following methods:
• Electronic Submissions: Submit
nomination packages to
sanctuary.nominations@noaa.gov.
• Mail: Director, Office of National
Marine Sanctuaries, 1305 East-West

ADDRESSES:

E:\FR\FM\13JNR1.SGM

13JNR1

33852

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 114 / Friday, June 13, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

Highway, 11th Floor, Silver Spring, MD
20910.
All nomination packages will be
posted in full upon submission to
NOAA at www.nominate.noaa.gov. Do
not submit confidential business,
personal, sensitive, or protected
information in a nomination. Personal
information within all nominations will
be kept confidential consistent with 5
U.S.C. 552(b)(6).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
• For general questions regarding the
sanctuary nomination process, please
contact Matt Brookhart, Chief, Policy &
Planning Division, NOAA Office of
National Marine Sanctuaries, 1305 EastWest Highway, 11th Floor, Silver
Spring, MD 20910, matt.brookhart@
noaa.gov.
• For specific interest in nominating
areas off Maine to North Carolina, or the
Great Lakes, contact Reed Bohne,
Northeast and Great Lakes Regional
Director, NOAA Office of National
Marine Sanctuaries, 10 Ocean Science
Circle, Savannah, GA 31411,
reed.bohne@noaa.gov.
• For specific interest in nominating
areas off South Carolina to Florida, the
Gulf of Mexico, or the Caribbean,
contact Billy Causey, Ph.D., Southeast
Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean
Regional Director, NOAA Office of
National Marine Sanctuaries, 33 East
Quay Road, Key West, FL 33040,
billy.causey@noaa.gov.
• For specific interest in nominating
areas off California to Alaska, contact
William Douros, West Coast Regional
Director, NOAA Office of National
Marine Sanctuaries, 99 Pacific Street,
Suite 100F, Monterey, CA 93940,
william.douros@noaa.gov.
• For specific interest in nominating
areas in the Pacific Islands, contact
Allen Tom, Pacific Islands Regional
Director, NOAA Office of National
Marine Sanctuaries, 726 South Kihei
Road, Kihei (Maui), HI 96753,
allen.tom@noaa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Electronic Access
This Federal Register document is
also accessible via the Internet at
http://www.access.gpo.gov/su-docs/
aces/aces140.html.

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

I. Background
The National Marine Sanctuaries Act
(NMSA or Act, 16 U.S.C. 1431 et seq.)
authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to
identify and designate as national
marine sanctuaries areas of the marine
environment, including the Great Lakes,
which are of special national
significance; to manage these areas as

VerDate Mar<15>2010

16:24 Jun 12, 2014

Jkt 232001

the National Marine Sanctuary System
(System); and to provide for the
comprehensive and coordinated
conservation and management of these
areas and the activities affecting them in
a manner which complements existing
regulatory authorities. Section 303 of
the NMSA provides national marine
sanctuary designation standards and
factors required in determining whether
an area qualifies for consideration as a
potential national marine sanctuary, and
section 304 establishes procedures for
national marine sanctuary designation
and implementation. Regulations
implementing the NMSA and each
national marine sanctuary are codified
in Part 922 of Title 15 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR).
NOAA developed its first formal
process for identifying and evaluating
sites for consideration as national
marine sanctuaries, known as the List of
Recommended Areas (LRA), in the late
1970s (44 FR 44831). In 1983, NOAA
replaced the LRA with the Site
Evaluation List (SEL) (48 FR 24295). As
defined in NOAA regulations at 15 CFR
922.3, the SEL was a list of natural and
historical marine resource sites selected
by the Secretary as qualifying for further
evaluation for possible designation as
national marine sanctuaries. The SEL
was initially developed by regional
review panels comprised of marine
scientists associated with regionallyspecific academic institutions or marine
management authorities, and was
intended to be reviewed and updated by
NOAA every five years. When it was
published in 1983, the SEL included 29
sites (48 FR 35568), four of which were
subsequently designated as national
marine sanctuaries: Flower Garden
Banks (1991), Stellwagen Bank (1992),
Western Washington Outer Coast
(renamed Olympic Coast, 1994), and
Thunder Bay (2000) national marine
sanctuaries (NMS). The list of sites on
the 1983 SEL can be found at http://
sanctuaries.noaa.gov/management/fr/
48_fr_35569.pdf.
When the Site Evaluation List was
established, the criteria for nominating
areas to the list focused primarily on the
natural resource qualities that made an
area eligible for national marine
sanctuary designation (48 FR 35568).
The Marine Sanctuaries Amendments
Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98–496) added
historical, research and educational
qualities to the list of designation
criteria. In 1988, NOAA issued a final
rule (53 FR 43801) reflecting these
amendments and, in 1989, announced it
would consider new sites for the SEL
consistent with these revised criteria (54
FR 53432). Ultimately, no new sites
were added to the 1983 SEL.

PO 00000

Frm 00004

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

In 1995, the ONMS Director
deactivated the SEL (60 FR 66875) to
focus on management of the existing
twelve national marine sanctuaries,
including expanding community
engagement (the designation process for
Thunder Bay National Marine
Sanctuary, which was completed in
2000, began before deactivation of the
SEL). Since then, ONMS has focused
primarily on maturing management at
the existing national marine sanctuaries
through comprehensive management
plan review, characterization of site
resources, partnership building, and
operational growth. At the same time,
public interest in the designation of new
national marine sanctuaries has grown.
A variety of individuals, local, state,
tribal governments, Congressional
representatives, academic institutions,
citizen groups, and non-government
organizations from around the country
have requested NOAA, the Department
of Commerce, and the President to
consider designating specific areas as
new national marine sanctuaries. These
requests often reference the many and
diverse benefits communities realize
from a national marine sanctuary,
including: Meaningful protection of
nationally significant marine resources;
significant social and economic benefits
from expanded travel, tourism, and
recreation, as well as ocean-related jobs;
increased opportunity for, and access to,
federal research focused on local marine
resources; education programs to
promote ocean literacy, sustainable
uses, and stewardship; and communitydriven problem solving for a myriad of
ocean issues.
NOAA considered re-establishing the
sanctuary nomination process in the
context of both the active community
interest and the overall maturing of the
System over the past two decades,
including lessons learned from previous
nomination processes. On June 28,
2013, NOAA issued a proposed rule to
re-establish the sanctuary nomination
process (78 FR 38848) and requested
public comment on: (1) The
completeness and utility of twelve draft
criteria for evaluating areas of the
marine environment as possible new
national marine sanctuaries; (2) NOAA’s
proposed process steps for receiving
sanctuary nominations; and (3)
proposed amendments to ONMS
regulations. This final rule addresses the
nearly 18,000 comments NOAA
received on the proposed rule (see
section VI), and finalizes the criteria,
management considerations, and
process to nominate areas of the marine
and Great Lakes environments for
potential addition to the inventory of

E:\FR\FM\13JNR1.SGM

13JNR1

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 114 / Friday, June 13, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
areas that may be considered for future
designation as a national marine
sanctuary. The final step of the
sanctuary nomination process is
addition to the inventory.
NOAA is not designating any new
national marine sanctuaries with this
action. Any designations resulting from
the nomination process would be
conducted by NOAA as a separate
process, and within the public
participation standards enacted by the
NMSA and National Environmental
Policy Act. NOAA will follow all
standards and requirements identified
in the NMSA when, in the future, it
considers a nomination for designation.

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

II. Description of Action
The purpose of this final rulemaking
is to:
(1) Provide public notice that NOAA
has re-opened the public process to
nominate areas of the marine and Great
Lakes environments for consideration as
national marine sanctuaries;
(2) Provide the final criteria and
considerations NOAA will use to
evaluate new national marine sanctuary
nominations for inclusion in an
inventory of areas that may be
considered for future designation as
national marine sanctuaries;
(3) Describe the process by which
areas are nominated and evaluated by
NOAA for potential inclusion in an
inventory of areas that may be
considered in the future as national
marine sanctuaries; and
(4) Identify changes to various
sections of the ONMS regulations at 15
CFR part 922.
The sanctuary nomination process
will focus on nominations generated
collaboratively by communities (as
defined above) and coalitions of
interested parties. It will replace the
currently inactive Site Evaluation List,
which tended towards an agencydriven, top-down approach, with a more
grassroots, bottom-up approach to
national marine sanctuary nominations.
NOAA is not considering evaluation of
sites from the deactivated Site
Evaluation List. The public may renominate sites from the deactivated Site
Evaluation List, per the final evaluation
criteria, and resubmit these areas for
NOAA’s consideration.
NOAA will begin accepting new
nominations following the effective date
of this final rule, and in accordance
with collection-of-information
requirements under OMB control
number 0648–0682 (see Section VIII, B
below for a full discussion of Paperwork
Reduction Act requirements).

VerDate Mar<15>2010

16:24 Jun 12, 2014

Jkt 232001

III. Nomination Criteria and
Considerations
In its June 2013 proposed rule, NOAA
asked the public to comment on twelve
criteria for nominating areas as possible
national marine sanctuaries. The twelve
proposed criteria were based on
national marine sanctuary designation
standards in section 303(b) of the
NMSA. Many of the public comments
included suggestions on how to further
refine the criteria to be more useful or
operational in the nomination phase.
The comments included broad
suggestions for more detail, suggestions
specific to one or more of the proposed
criteria, suggestions on which criteria to
emphasize, and suggestions that some of
the proposed criteria did not fit the
definition of criteria and would be
better described as ‘‘considerations.’’
NOAA also received comments asking
for more information on whether there
would be a minimum number of criteria
that an area would need to meet to be
accepted into the inventory.
Based on these comments, NOAA
developed four final criteria to evaluate
the national significance of a
nomination, and seven considerations
for management of the area as a national
marine sanctuary. These national
significance criteria and management
considerations remain consistent with
the designation standards in section
303(b) of the NMSA while providing
more specificity and clarity for
nominating communities. While NOAA
is not establishing a minimum number
of national significance criteria, nor
giving greater significance to any
particular criterion, the strongest
nominations will provide a clear
connection and focus on the criteria
most relevant to the goal and intent for
the nominated area, and provide as
much information as possible for those
criteria. Nominations should provide
information addressing all seven
management considerations, with
special emphasis on consideration #7,
describing community-based support.
Nominations will not be judged against
each other with regard to completeness
or robustness of criteria and
considerations. NOAA’s final evaluation
will be based on a qualitative analysis
of a nomination’s ability to demonstrate
the relevant national significance
criteria and management considerations;
the agency will not apply a numerical
value or score to any nomination.
A. National Significance Criteria
(1) The area’s natural resources and
ecological qualities are of special
significance and contribute to:
Biological productivity or diversity;

PO 00000

Frm 00005

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

33853

maintenance or enhancement of
ecosystem structure and function;
maintenance of ecologically or
commercially important species or
species assemblages; maintenance or
enhancement of critical habitat,
representative biogeographic
assemblages, or both; or maintenance or
enhancement of connectivity to other
ecologically significant resources.
(2) The area contains submerged
maritime heritage resources of special
historical, cultural, or archaeological
significance, that: Individually or
collectively are consistent with the
criteria of eligibility for listing on the
National Register of Historic Places; 1
have met or which would meet the
criteria for designation as a National
Historic Landmark; or have special or
sacred meaning to the indigenous
people of the region or nation.
(3) The area supports present and
potential economic uses, such as:
Tourism; commercial and recreational
fishing; subsistence and traditional uses;
diving; and other recreational uses that
depend on conservation and
management of the area’s resources.
(4) The publicly-derived benefits of
the area, such as aesthetic value, public
recreation, and access to places depend
on conservation and management of the
area’s resources.
B. Management Considerations
(1) The area provides or enhances
opportunities for research in marine
science, including marine archaeology.
(2) The area provides or enhances
opportunities for education, including
the understanding and appreciation of
the marine and Great Lakes
environments.
(3) Adverse impacts from current or
future uses and activities threaten the
area’s significance, values, qualities, and
resources.
(4) A national marine sanctuary
would provide unique conservation and
management value for this area or
adjacent areas.
(5) The existing regulatory and
management authorities for the area
1 Source, 36 CFR Section 60.4: The National
Register of Historic Places evaluation criteria are for
resources:
(a) That are associated with events that have
made a significant contribution to the broad
patterns of our history; or
(b) that are associated with the lives of significant
persons in our past; or
(c) the embody the distinctive characteristics of
a type, period, or method of construction, or that
represent the work of a master, or that possess high
artistic values, or that represent a significant and
distinguishable entity whose components may lack
individual distinction; or
(d) that have yielded or may likely yield,
information important in history or prehistory.

E:\FR\FM\13JNR1.SGM

13JNR1

33854

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 114 / Friday, June 13, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

sanctuary consideration occurs when
the nominator formally submits a
nomination to NOAA. The nomination
should include a specific point of
contact. There is no required form for
the nominations; however, to guide
nominators, NOAA has posted a
nomination guide on the ONMS Web
site (www.nominate.noaa.gov). The
maximum length for a nomination is not
to exceed 25 pages, including
attachments. All nominations will be
made publicly available in their entirety
on the ONMS Web site. Do not submit
confidential business, personal,
sensitive, or protected information in a
nomination. Personal information
within all nominations will be kept
confidential consistent with 5 U.S.C.
552 and other federal laws. NOAA
encourages nominators to contact
NOAA if there are questions about what
to include or what will be posted
online. The nominator shall not deliver
IV. Process for Submission and
any copyrighted information without
Evaluation of Nominations
first acquiring for or granting to the
In its June 2013 proposed rule, NOAA Government a copyright license for the
requested comments on the proposed
information. There are no deadlines for
process for submitting and evaluating
submission of nominations while the
nominations. In general, commenters
nomination process is open. NOAA
requested NOAA provide more detail
encourages electronic submissions be
about the process, including how the
sent to Sanctuary.Nominations@
agency would make decisions on
noaa.gov, but will accept paper
nominated areas and timelines for
applications by mail as well. All
review. NOAA has developed its final
nominations should be addressed to:
process based on how the agency
Director, NOAA Office of National
currently anticipates implementation of Marine Sanctuaries. The mailing
the review process. If this process
address is 1305 East West Highway,
evolves over time, NOAA will notify the SSMC4 11th Floor, Silver Spring, MD
public of changes to the review process. 20910.
NOAA anticipates its review process of
Step 3) Sufficiency Review. Once
a nomination will take between three to
NOAA receives a nomination, the
six months, although additional time
agency will review it for sufficiency
may be required for review of more
against the national significance criteria
complex nominations. The final
and management considerations. This
nomination process is summarized in
initial review will determine if the
the following six steps:
Step 1) Nomination Development. The nomination has enough information for
NOAA to adequately conduct a
nomination process begins with a
subsequent, more detailed review based
community-based development of a
nomination. There is no requirement for on the significance criteria and
management considerations. NOAA will
who may nominate an area for
strive to complete its sufficiency review
consideration; however, nominations
should demonstrate broad support from within thirty (30) days of receiving a
nomination. Once complete, NOAA will
variety of stakeholders and interested
inform the nominator that either the
parties. The nomination should also
nomination is moving to the next stage
identify the specific goal or intent for
nominating a national marine sanctuary. of review, or additional information is
needed to complete the nomination. In
Any nomination must provide the
some cases, NOAA may determine that
information necessary to adequately
address the national significance criteria a nomination is insufficient and will
decline the nomination. In those cases,
relevant to the nominator’s goal for
nominating (and ultimately designating) NOAA will provide the nominator with
that area as a national marine sanctuary, a letter of rationale in support of its
decision to decline the nomination. The
as well as information for all of the
letter of rationale will also be posted on
management considerations.
NOAA’s nomination Web site. A
Step 2) Nomination Submission. The
nominator may resubmit a revised
formal request for national marine

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

could be supplemented or
complemented to meet the conservation
and management goals for the area.
(6) There are commitments or possible
commitments for partnership
opportunities such as cost sharing,
office space, exhibit space, vessel time,
or other collaborations to aid
conservation or management programs
for the area.
(7) There is community-based support
for the nomination expressed by a broad
range of interests, such as: Individuals
or locally-based groups (e.g., friends of
group, chamber of commerce); local,
tribal, state, or national agencies; elected
officials; or topic-based stakeholder
groups, at the local, regional or national
level (e.g., a local chapter of an
environmental organization, a
regionally-based fishing group, a
national-level recreation or tourism
organization, academia or science-based
group, or an industry association).

VerDate Mar<15>2010

16:24 Jun 12, 2014

Jkt 232001

PO 00000

Frm 00006

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

nomination for an area that has been
declined by the agency.
Step 4) National Significance Review.
Nominations NOAA determines to be
sufficient will then be reviewed against
the national significance criteria
identified in Section III.A of this final
rule. NOAA will strive to complete the
national significance review within
thirty (30) days of the nomination being
determined to be sufficient. When
necessary, NOAA may conduct an
external peer review to provide
additional expertise on a nomination’s
ability to meet the national significance
criteria. Any external review is expected
to add thirty (30) days to the review
timeline. The composition of the
external peer review group will be based
on the expertise needed for that
nomination. There will not be a
standing review group and each
reviewer will provide their own
recommendation. NOAA will not seek a
consensus recommendation from any
peer review group. The outcomes of the
external peer review, if needed, will be
considered in NOAA’s determination of
the national significance of the
nominated area. Once its review is
complete, NOAA will notify the
nominator of one of the three possible
outcomes: (1) The nomination moves on
to the next step of review; (2) NOAA
requires additional information to
determine the nominated area meets the
national significance criteria; or (3) the
nomination does not meet the national
significance criteria and is declined
with a letter of rationale.
Step 5) Management Review.
Nominations NOAA determines to meet
the national significance criteria will
then be reviewed against the
management considerations identified
in Section III.B of this final rule. NOAA
will strive to complete its management
review after thirty (30) days of the
nomination being determined to be
nationally significant. NOAA will
discuss the nomination with interested
tribal or state governments during this
review when the area is in proximity to
tribal or state lands. Similarly, NOAA
will discuss the nomination with
Federal land managers in proximity to
the nominated area. Any tribal, state, or
Federal coordination is expected to add
additional time to NOAA’s review.
NOAA encourages nominators to
coordinate with relevant tribal and state
governments, and relevant Federal land
managers, before a nomination is
submitted. Upon completion of the
management review, NOAA will notify
the nominator of one of three possible
outcomes: (1) The nomination moves on
to the next step; (2) NOAA requires
additional information to determine the

E:\FR\FM\13JNR1.SGM

13JNR1

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 114 / Friday, June 13, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
nominated area meets the management
considerations; or (3) the nomination
does not meet the management
considerations and is declined with a
letter of rationale.
Step 6) Acceptance to Inventory.
Nominations that the ONMS Director
deems to have successfully completed
the reviews for sufficiency, national
significance, and management
considerations will be added to a
standing inventory of areas NOAA
could consider for national marine
sanctuary designation. NOAA will send
a letter of notification to the nominator,
and then publish a Federal Register
notice when an area has been added to
the inventory. The inventory and
notification letters will also be posted
on the ONMS Web site. If NOAA takes
no designation action on a nomination
in the inventory, the nomination will
expire after five years from the time it
is accepted to the inventory.
Addition to the inventory is the last
step in the nomination process. NOAA
is not designating any new national
marine sanctuaries with this action. Any
designations resulting from the
nomination process would be
conducted by NOAA as a separate
process, and within the public
participation standards enacted by the
NMSA and National Environmental
Policy Act. NOAA will follow all
designation standards and requirements
identified in the NMSA when, in the
future, it considers a nomination for
designation.
Nominations will be reviewed in the
order they are received by NOAA.
During the development of a
nomination, ONMS staff may answer
questions on the criteria, considerations,
process, or other general questions
about national marine sanctuaries.
Although not mandatory, NOAA
encourages nominators to contact their
respective ONMS Regional Directors at
the address or email above for
clarification on any questions relative to
a nomination proposal. While NOAA is
able to provide clarity and guidance on
the criteria and considerations, it is the
nominator’s responsibility to research,
write, and develop nominations.
If NOAA needs additional
information during the nomination
process, a request will be sent to the
nominator, either by email, phone, or
letter. The nominator should provide
the requested information, or an
estimate of additional time required to
prepare the information, to the NOAA
point of contact within thirty (30) days.
If a response has not been received from
the nominator within thirty (30) days,
the nomination will be deemed
withdrawn, and no further action will

VerDate Mar<15>2010

16:24 Jun 12, 2014

Jkt 232001

be taken on the nomination by NOAA.
In those cases, the nominator may
resubmit a nomination to NOAA for
reconsideration.
V. Regulatory Amendments
In this rulemaking, NOAA revises 15
CFR 922.10 to codify it is accepting
nominations for potential national
marine sanctuary designation, and
providing the criteria and
considerations it will use to evaluate
nominations. NOAA is also:
• Replacing the definition of the Site
Evaluation List with a definition of
‘‘Inventory’’ in 15 CFR sections 922.3;
and
• replacing references to the Site
Evaluation List with references to the
Inventory in 15 CFR sections 922.3 and
922.21(a).
Note that, through a separate
rulemaking dated January 28, 2013 (78
FR 5998), NOAA proposed to revise
regulations regarding the Site
Evaluation List as part of a
comprehensive regulatory review
pursuant to Executive Order 13563. In
that rulemaking, NOAA proposed to
delete paragraph 922.10(c). That
proposal is no longer necessary due to
this rulemaking and NOAA will remove
these references when that rulemaking
is made final.
VI. Response to Public Comments
1. Comment: The vast majority of the
commenters supported the reestablishment of the sanctuary
nomination process, stating it is an
important first step toward filling gaps
in ocean and Great Lakes protection.
Many also commented that after 13
years with no new national marine
sanctuary designations, a process to
nominate new national marine
sanctuaries is warranted. These
commenters cited a number of reasons
for support of new national marine
sanctuaries, including general
environmental protection, management
of climate change, enhancing the value
of coastal and ocean economies through
recreation and tourism, and the
community-based nature of the
nomination process proposed by NOAA.
Many of these commenters were also
concerned about potential impact to the
marine environment from oil and gas
activities, and the role new national
marine sanctuaries could play in
helping to mitigate negative impacts.
Response: NOAA concurs, and
believes it is appropriate to move
forward with re-establishing the
sanctuary nomination process.
2. Comment: Several commenters
argued that the criteria lacked
completeness and utility (e.g., were

PO 00000

Frm 00007

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

33855

incomplete, too general, not
appropriate, or not quantitative enough).
Some commenters cautioned that the
proposed criteria were too broad and
would result in many underqualified
nominations.
Response: NOAA has taken these
comments into consideration to provide
more clear and robust criteria that are a
logical outgrowth of the twelve criteria
put forward in the proposed rule.
NOAA agrees that there were
distinctions of use and applicability
among the proposed twelve criteria, and
with this final rule, has refined the
language of the criteria and made their
application more manageable by
reorganizing related criteria into two
categories—national significance criteria
and management considerations. The
refined criteria and considerations are
consistent with, and do not change
substantively, those listed in the
proposed rule, but address public
comments requesting that NOAA
provide more clarity and specificity
regarding the nomination standards.
NOAA anticipates that the national
significance and management categories
will facilitate the submission of new
national marine sanctuaries. The
national significance criteria focus on
whether an area is considered a special
place worthy of Federal protection by
addressing the ecological value,
historical significance, economic uses,
and publically-derived benefits of the
area. The management considerations
provide a more specific interpretation of
the relevant NMSA Section 303(b)
designation standards, such as explicit
recognition of partnership opportunities
and specific definition of groups that
could be included in the community
supporting the nomination. NOAA
describes in Section IV how it will use
these two categories in the review
process for evaluating nominations.
3. Comment: One commenter
suggested that NOAA should remove
the criteria that measures economic
impact.
Response: The NMSA requires NOAA
consider the economic benefits and
impacts of the present and potential
uses of national marine sanctuaries
(NMSA Section 303(b)(1)(I)). Sustaining
local economies that rely on a healthy
marine environment is an important
goal at all national marine sanctuaries.
NOAA cannot therefore remove this
statutorily required criteria.
4. Comment: Commenters asked
NOAA to include consideration and
recognition of the importance of
waterborne commerce in the designated
area.
Response: NOAA believes the final
rule includes the criteria necessary for

E:\FR\FM\13JNR1.SGM

13JNR1

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

33856

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 114 / Friday, June 13, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

considering compatible uses of national
marine sanctuaries, including
waterborne commerce. NOAA
recognizes the vital importance of
waterborne commerce, not only to
communities but to the Nation and a
vibrant economy.
5. Comment: Commenters suggested
that the core criteria should be
protection of natural resources,
ecological qualities, and areas of
historical, cultural, archaeological, or
paleontological significance.
Response: The final criteria focus first
on the national significance of a
nominated area’s biological and cultural
resources, and which includes the
considerations mentioned by the
commenters. National marine
sanctuaries are designated with the
primary purpose of resource protection,
and the value added to both local
communities and the Nation, and any
new national marine sanctuary
designation would be considered within
this context.
6. Comment: Commenters asked
NOAA to ensure a criterion includes
maintenance of endangered species and
their critical habitat.
Response: The final national
significance criteria include a provision
that takes into account the value of an
area in maintaining endangered species
and their habitat. Consideration of
endangered species and their habitat is
also required under the Endangered
Species Act.
7. Comment: Several commenters
asked NOAA to consider the balance
between protecting the health of the
proposed area while providing access to
and use of that area.
Response: The final national
significance criteria recognize the
significance of an area’s natural and
cultural resources, as well as its
economic, use, and aesthetic values.
Furthermore, the management
considerations provide nominators the
opportunity to identify the existing or
potential management values of an area,
and how those values may support a
national marine sanctuary.
8. Comment: Several commenters
suggested that the proposed rule did not
provide the public with a good sense for
how the criteria would be applied in
deciding which nominations will be
moved toward national marine
sanctuary designation. Some
commenters asked if there was a
threshold or standard for each criterion.
Response: Consistent with the criteria
in the proposed rule, NOAA has based
the final criteria on section 303(b) of the
NMSA. However, NOAA has refined the
final criteria to be more operational in
determining national significance and

VerDate Mar<15>2010

16:24 Jun 12, 2014

Jkt 232001

manageability, and in doing so believes
the national significance criteria and
management considerations set clear
standards for nominating and evaluating
an area as a national marine sanctuary.
When appropriate, NOAA will conduct
a third party external peer review to
further evaluate a nomination’s ability
to meet the final criteria and
considerations. Nominations will not be
judged against each other with regard to
completeness or robustness of criteria.
NOAA’s final evaluation will be based
on a qualitative analysis of a
nomination’s ability to demonstrate the
relevant national significance criteria
and management considerations; the
agency will not apply a numerical value
or score to any nomination.
9. Comment: Several commenters
asked NOAA to define the number of
criteria that need to be met in order to
have a successful nomination, and how
those criteria will be measured.
Commenters also asked NOAA if there
were mandatory and optional criteria,
and how the criteria relate to each other.
Response: There is no minimum
number of national significance criteria
a nominator needs to meet for a
successful nomination. NOAA
encourages nominations to include
information on all of the criteria
relevant to the specific goals and intent
a nominator has for an area.
Nominations with high maritime
heritage value, for example, may require
less or no information on the natural
resource criteria. Similarly, NOAA is
not requiring nominations with high
natural resource value to declare or
define high maritime heritage value if
that value does not exist. Nominations
with both high natural resource and
maritime heritage value should,
however, include information on both
qualities. The strongest nominations
will have a clear sense of all the
national significance criteria relevant to
that area, and provide as much
information as possible for those
criteria. Nominations should provide
information addressing all seven
management considerations, with
special emphasis on consideration #7
describing community-based support.
NOAA encourages nominators to
contact their respective ONMS Regional
Directors at the address or email above
for clarification on any questions
relative to a nomination proposal.
10. Comment: Several commenters
requested NOAA ensure the criteria
consider the current management
structure and level of protection for the
area proposed.
Response: NOAA recognized this
issue in the proposed rule and has also
included it in the final rule under

PO 00000

Frm 00008

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

management consideration #5 (‘‘The
existing regulatory and management
authorities for the area could be
supplemented or complemented to meet
the conservation and management goals
for the area.’’).
11. Comment: Several commenters
believed that the proposed process for
evaluating nominations was incomplete
and did not provide the public with a
clear indication of how NOAA would
proceed once it received nominations.
They believed that several questions
remained unanswered by the proposed
regulations, including: who will make a
decision on the nomination; how will
the process be transparent; and how
other agencies and regional fishery
management councils are to be
involved.
Response: NOAA has provided
significant detail on the process for
submitting national marine sanctuary
nominations in section IV of the final
rule, including what actions will occur
at each of the six steps, possible
outcomes of the process, opportunities
for nominators to discuss the process
with NOAA, and that the ONMS
Director will determine at the end of the
review if a nomination is accepted into
the inventory. NOAA will also include
this and additional details on the ONMS
Web site. Other federal agencies and the
regional fishery management councils
may choose to include themselves as
part of the nomination of a new national
marine sanctuary. If in the future NOAA
decides to begin designation for a
nomination in the inventory, the NMSA
defines the specific coordination and
consultation requirements ONMS must
follow with other Federal agencies and
the respective regional fishery
management councils.
12. Comment: Some commenters
indicated that certain interested parties
may not have the capacity to develop a
nomination or have access to the
information necessary to clearly
demonstrate the criteria or management
considerations. They asked if NOAA
could provide technical services,
assistance, or financial support for
nomination development.
Response: NOAA may engage in
discussion with communities as they
develop and revise their nominations to
provide informational assistance or
recommendations. In some instances,
the agency may be able to provide some
technical services, but does anticipate
providing any financial support. It will
be the responsibility of the nominators
to acquire and synthesize the
information necessary to develop their
nomination.
13. Comment: Several commenters
were concerned that if sites were

E:\FR\FM\13JNR1.SGM

13JNR1

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 114 / Friday, June 13, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
‘‘weighted’’ in value, that those focusing
solely on historic and cultural resources
would not score as high as those which
also include ecological values, and that
the process would be inherently biased
against cultural resource nominations.
These reviewers suggested constructing
two separate review processes; one for
nominating ecologically-focused
national marine sanctuaries and the
other for maritime heritage-focused
national marine sanctuaries, so that
these nominations are not weighed
against each other.
Response: NOAA will not be scoring
the nominations individually or against
each other, and will be looking at the
merits of each nomination relative to the
nominators’ specific intent for their
respective nomination and the relevant
criteria. Per the NMSA, the final criteria
recognize both biological and cultural
resources as under consideration for
possible national marine sanctuary
designation. See NOAA’s response to
comment #9 above for additional
information on how a nominator should
consider the resources of their
nomination.
14. Comment: Several commenters
indicated they would like more
transparency in the evaluation process
once a nomination is received. They
also suggested that NOAA develop and
provide a timeline.
Response: Based on these comments,
NOAA has revised its final criteria,
management considerations, and
process to provide more transparency
and clarity. With regard to a timeline,
the final rule indicates that NOAA will
strive to complete the review process in
90 to 180 days (see section IV).
Furthermore, when NOAA adds an area
to the inventory for areas to consider for
national marine sanctuary designation,
it will stay active in the inventory for up
to five years.
15. Comment: Several commenters
questioned moving forward with the
sanctuary nomination process given
recent trends of the Federal budget, as
well as the provisions within section
304(f) of the NMSA, ‘‘Limitation on
Designation of New Sanctuaries.’’
Response: NOAA’s purpose with this
final rule is to re-open the process by
which the public submits nominations
to NOAA for consideration as new
national marine sanctuaries. NOAA will
address any resource issues, as well as
NMSA section 304(f), when, in the
future, it considers a nomination for
designation. Designations of new
national marine sanctuaries are not
addressed in this action.
16. Comment: Several commenters
asked NOAA to clarify how the
nomination process for new national

VerDate Mar<15>2010

16:24 Jun 12, 2014

Jkt 232001

marine sanctuaries coincides with other
government policy initiatives, such as
the National Ocean Policy.
Response: While NOAA is
implementing the sanctuary nomination
process under the authority of the
NMSA, this action also meets the goals
of the National Ocean Policy
Implementation Plan. The
Implementation Plan includes a specific
action to reactivate the ONMS Site
Evaluation List (SEL). For the reasons
stated in this preamble, NOAA is
replacing the SEL with the sanctuary
nomination process, but considers this
action consistent with the
Implementation Plan’s goal of SEL
reactivation. NOAA contemplates
collaboration with other Federal
agencies in management consideration
#5 (‘‘The existing regulatory and
management authorities for the area
could be supplemented or
complemented to meet the conservation
and management goals for the area.’’), as
does section 301(b)(7) of the NMSA,
which directs ONMS to develop and
implement coordinated plans for the
protection and management of national
marine sanctuaries.
17. Comment: Several commenters
asked NOAA to take into account the
presence/absence of existing marine
protected areas (MPAs) in the vicinity
(e.g., who manages them, the extent they
are currently working, etc.). Other
commenters recommended or were
concerned about the prospect of using
the existing list of ‘‘special places’’ (e.g.,
MPAs) as a starting point as an existing
inventory of worthy, nationally
significant sites.
Response: A nominator may elect to
include an existing protected area, such
as marine reserve designated under state
authority, as part of its nomination for
a national marine sanctuary. However,
nominators should consider that the
final nomination criteria identified in
this rule may be different from, or
inconsistent with, the criteria applied to
protected areas managed under other
authorities. Nominators should consider
the management scheme most
appropriate for an area prior to
submitting a nomination for a national
marine sanctuary. While the NMSA is a
robust and adaptive management tool
that offers many alternatives for marine
protection and conservation, as
indicated by management consideration
#4 (‘‘A national marine sanctuary would
provide unique conservation and
management value for this area or
adjacent areas.’’), it may not be suitable
for certain areas or certain types of
resources.
18. Comment: Several commenters
expressed concern over how tribal

PO 00000

Frm 00009

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

33857

governments will be included in the
process. Some commenters asked that
NOAA include ‘‘maintenance of native
cultures’’ in its final criteria, and
recognize ‘‘tribal governments’’ in its
list of existing authorities.
Response: Final management
consideration #7 identifies the types of
community support NOAA recommends
for a nomination, and includes tribal
governments. Further, as discussed in
section IV of this final rule, if a
nomination includes waters in
proximity to tribal lands or areas with
customary and usual use of treaty
waters or stations, NOAA recommends
the nominator discuss its nomination
with the respective tribal government. If
a nomination does not indicate tribal
consultation for these types of areas,
NOAA will request the nominator do so
before continuing its review of the
nomination. Should ONMS consider
any nomination for national marine
sanctuary designation, it would adhere
to its consultation and coordination
obligations under the NMSA and
potential obligations under Section 106
of the National Historic Preservation Act
with any tribal government included in,
or in proximity to, the area. NOAA will
also fulfill its obligations and
responsibilities pursuant to Executive
Order 13175, ‘‘Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments.’’
19. Comment: Some commenters
suggested NOAA include the term
‘‘traditional use’’ in addition to
subsistence use in its final criteria,
noting that ‘‘traditional/native uses may
be broader than subsistence and this
would be a helpful clarification.’’
Response: NOAA has added
‘‘subsistence and traditional uses’’ to
National Significance Criterion #3 (‘‘The
area supports present and potential
economic uses, such as tourism,
commercial and recreational fishing,
subsistence and traditional uses, diving,
and other recreational uses that depend
on conservation and management of the
area’s resources.’’)
20. Comment: One commenter asked
NOAA to consider how a proposed area
would maintain native cultures.
Response: If a proposed nomination
includes or is in proximity to tribal
lands, NOAA recommends the
nominator consider the maintenance of
tribal cultures in its proposal. In
addition, NOAA has added ‘‘subsistence
and traditional uses’’ to National
Significance Criterion #3 (‘‘The area
supports present and potential
economic uses, such as tourism,
commercial and recreational fishing,
subsistence and traditional uses, diving,
and other recreational uses that depend

E:\FR\FM\13JNR1.SGM

13JNR1

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

33858

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 114 / Friday, June 13, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

on conservation and management of the
area’s resources.’’)
21. Comment: Some commenters
suggested that the idea of making the
process more ‘‘bottom up’’ and
‘‘community-driven’’ was unclear and
may exclude the views of stakeholders
outside of the immediate geography of
a nominated area. Some of these
commenters noted there are ocean areas
where the resources are managed for the
benefit of the Nation as a whole, not
limited local user groups. These
commenters wanted clarity on the role
of ‘‘local’’ vs. ‘‘national’’ stakeholder
groups, and more information on how
NOAA defined ‘‘broad community
support.’’ Commenters were also
concerned about how NOAA would
identify and evaluate support for the
nomination to ensure that all voices
with an interest are heard, not just the
voices closest to the proposed area.
Response: NOAA provided a broad
interpretation of ‘communities’ in the
proposed rule, and acknowledges in this
final rule that communities are not
limited to a specific geography. To
further emphasize this point, NOAA
includes examples of what constitutes
communities in its final management
consideration #7 (‘‘There is communitybased support for the nomination
expressed by a broad range of interests,
such as: Individuals or locally-based
groups (e.g., friends of group, chamber
of commerce); local, tribal, state, or
national agencies; elected officials; or
topic-based stakeholder groups, at the
local, regional or national level (e.g., a
local chapter of an environmental
organization, a regionally-based fishing
group, a national-level recreation or
tourism organization, academia or
science-based group, or an industry
association.’’)). NOAA believes this
revised description of ‘‘communities’’
provides for a variety of interested
parties to organize and submit national
marine sanctuary nominations.
22. Comment: Several commenters
asked for a clarification about the
differences between the Site Evaluation
List and the new sanctuary nomination
process.
Response: The primary difference
between the Site Evaluation List (SEL)
and the sanctuary nomination process is
that the sanctuary nomination process
necessitates nominations be developed
by the public in a grass roots, bottom up
model that promotes community-based
stewardship of special marine and Great
Lakes areas. In contrast, the SEL relied
almost solely on input from regional
review panels comprised of academic
experts and ocean management
practitioners. NOAA believes the final
criteria, management considerations,

VerDate Mar<15>2010

16:24 Jun 12, 2014

Jkt 232001

and nomination process provide
specific, well-defined parameters for
communities across the Nation to have
a voice and opportunity to effectively
nominate areas that meet the high
standard of national marine sanctuary
designation.
A secondary difference is that the
sanctuary nomination process allows
nominators to submit areas they feel
best represent the most current marine
and Great Lakes areas of national
significance. All sites on the SEL were
20 or more years old and have likely
experienced changes in resources (both
ecological and cultural) and
management. NOAA believes it prudent,
therefore, to remove these sites as
candidates for national marine
sanctuary designation and allow the
public to consider new areas.
Nominators can submit areas on the SEL
as part of the new sanctuary nomination
process, but should ensure these areas
are consistent with the final national
significance criteria and management
considerations.
23. Comment: Several commenters
asked about the sites listed on the
deactivated Site Evaluation List and
requested that NOAA reconsider
removing these sites from consideration.
Response: While the Site Evaluation
List (SEL) was last active in 1995, most
of the sites on the SEL were originally
put on the list in the 1980s, and there
have not been any recent efforts by
NOAA to update information about
those sites. Therefore, NOAA has
determined it appropriate to remove the
existing SEL sites as pre-existing areas
for consideration as national marine
sanctuaries. However, nominators can
re-propose areas from the SEL per the
final national significance criteria,
management considerations, and
process identified in this final rule.
Following the process described in this
final rule, NOAA will evaluate all
nominated areas, including any that
may have previously been on the SEL.
24. Comment: One commenter asked
NOAA to provide more information on
how the sanctuary nomination process
would deal with nominations to dedesignate a national marine sanctuary.
This commenter suggested that the goal
of the ONMS should be to return the
areas to the state’s control.
Response: Designation and dedesignation of national marine
sanctuaries are beyond the scope of this
action. There are other means by which
NOAA evaluates the effectiveness of
national marine sanctuary management,
including a rigorous management plan
review processes, that could consider
changes in regulations and area of
national marine sanctuary managed.

PO 00000

Frm 00010

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

This final rule does not contemplate the
de-designation of any national marine
sanctuary.
With regard to ‘‘returning areas to
state control,’’ this is not a goal of the
NMSA. Many of the current national
marine sanctuaries have strong
partnerships with the respective state
government, and NOAA anticipates
these will continue in any future
designation of a national marine
sanctuary adjacent to, or in proximity
to, state lands.
25. Comment: Some commenters had
suggestions for amending ONMS
regulations to align the sanctuary
nomination process proposed rule with
a January 2012 proposed rule issued by
NOAA designed to clarify and update
several ONMS regulations. Commenters
suggested that the two rules were
conflicting, and that NOAA should
withdraw both rules and begin the
process again with an advanced notice
of rulemaking.
Response: In January 2012 (78 FR
5998), NOAA issued a proposal to
amend national marine sanctuary
regulations as part of a comprehensive
regulatory review pursuant to Executive
Order 13563. That action proposed to
modify the Site Evaluation List (SEL)
regulations so that rather than NOAA
solely selecting potential sites from a
periodically updated list (the SEL), the
public would also be able to petition the
agency for new national marine
sanctuaries in areas not contemplated
by the SEL.
Upon further analysis and after
considering public comments on the
June 2013 proposed rule for the
sanctuary nomination process, NOAA
believes the sanctuary nomination
process described in this final rule
provides a more structured process for
stakeholder involvement in the
nomination of new national marine
sanctuaries. When NOAA ultimately
revises its final rule for the January 2012
proposal to amend sanctuary
regulations, it will address changes to
the SEL prompted by the sanctuary
nomination process.
26. Comment: Most commenters
supported the regulatory amendments
that were proposed. Some commenters
suggested that the proposed amendment
to 15 CFR 922.10(b) be revised to
include explicit steps for submitting a
nomination. With regard to section
922.10(c), some commenters were
concerned that NOAA simply stating
‘‘any further guidance issued by NOAA’’
could run afoul of the Administrative
Procedures Act (APA). Another
commenter suggested keeping section
922.21, but replacing references to SEL

E:\FR\FM\13JNR1.SGM

13JNR1

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 114 / Friday, June 13, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

with references to ‘‘list of eligible
candidates.’’
Response: NOAA agrees regarding 15
CFR 922.21, and has replaced the
reference to SEL with a definition of
‘‘Inventory’’ (section 922.3). NOAA has
also revised section 922.10 based on
comments requesting more detailed
information on the criteria, management
considerations, and review process for
national marine sanctuary nominations.
NOAA has removed from the final rule
the language ‘‘any further guidance
issued by NOAA.’’
VII. Summary of Changes From the
Proposed Rule
With this final rule, NOAA has made
several changes in response to
comments and for purposes of clarity
that are a logical outgrowth of the
proposed rule. In the proposed rule,
NOAA suggested using the twelve
standards set forth in NMSA section
303(b) to evaluate nominations. Several
public comments noted that these
standards are too general for use as
criteria and suggested that NOAA
provide more clarity and specificity
regarding their meaning and intent (see
comments 2 through 6, and 10). In
response to these comments, NOAA
clarified the language of the proposed
standards and grouped the standards
into two categories, one addressing
national significance and a second
considers the management feasibility of
a nomination. NOAA has revised the
final rule to include four national
significance criteria and seven
management considerations, all of
which are consistent with the standards
of section 303(b) of the NMSA, as
identified in the proposed rule. NOAA
removed two proposed standards
without substantively changing the
proposed rule, as these standards were
more appropriate for consideration
during the national marine sanctuary
designation process, rather than the
nomination process. The removed
standards focused on the manageability
of an area as a national marine
sanctuary and an area’s value as an
addition to the National Marine
Sanctuary System.
NOAA added two additional
measurements (as final management
considerations) to this final rule that
were a logical outgrowth of the
proposed rule (management
considerations #6 and #7). These
considerations seek to determine the
variety of community-based interest in a
national marine sanctuary nomination,
and the potential partnership
opportunities associated with the
specific area being nominated, both of
which NOAA believes are essential to

VerDate Mar<15>2010

16:24 Jun 12, 2014

Jkt 232001

any future national marine sanctuary
nomination. The public comments on
the proposed rule and NOAA’s
experience with the current sanctuaries
has shown that community engagement
is critical to successful sanctuary
management.
NOAA has also made revisions to the
nomination review process based on the
public comments on the proposed rule.
The public requested additional clarity
on the review steps that are described in
six steps in this final rule.
Finally, NOAA has made changes to
the regulatory amendments, by revising
section 922.10, and adding a definition
in section 922.3 to update the
regulations with the new nomenclature
for the sanctuary nomination process.
NOAA has also revised section 922.21.
VIII. Classification
A. Regulatory Flexibility Act
At the proposed stage, the Chief
Counsel for Regulation of the
Department of Commerce certified to
the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the
Small Business Administration (SBA)
that this rule would not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
NOAA received no comments on this
certification, the rationale for which is
contained in the proposed rule.
Accordingly, no regulatory flexibility
analysis is required, and none has been
prepared.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
Notwithstanding any other provisions
of the law, no person is required to
respond to, nor shall any person be
subject to a penalty for failure to comply
with a collection of information subject
to the requirements of the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq., unless that collection of
information displays a currently valid
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) control number. Nominations for
national marine sanctuaries discussed
in this final rule involve a collection-ofinformation requirement subject to the
requirements of the PRA. OMB has
approved this collection of information
requirement under OMB control number
0648–0682.
The collection-of-information
requirement applies to persons seeking
to submit nominations to designate new
national marine sanctuaries and is
necessary to determine whether the
nominated areas are consistent with the
purposes and policies of the NMSA.
Public reporting burden for this
collection of information is estimated to
average 29 hours per response
(nomination and supporting

PO 00000

Frm 00011

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

33859

documents), including the time for
reviewing instructions, searching
existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and
completing and reviewing the collection
of information.
C. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
This rule has been determined to not
be significant within the meaning of
Executive Order 12866.
D. National Environmental Policy Act
NOAA has concluded that this action
will not have a significant effect,
individually or cumulatively, on the
human environment, because this action
is not creating or designating any new
national marine sanctuaries. Therefore,
this action is categorically excluded
from the requirement to prepare an
environmental assessment or
environmental impact statement in
accordance with Section 6.03c.3(i) of
NOAA Administrative Order 216–6.
Specifically, this action is a notice of an
administrative and legal nature. Should
NOAA decide to designate a national
marine sanctuary, each individual
national marine sanctuary designation
will be subject to case-by-case analysis,
as required under NEPA and as outlined
in section 304(a)(2)(A) of the NMSA.
E. Information Quality Act
Pursuant to Section 515 of Public Law
106–554 (IQA), this information product
has undergone a pre-dissemination
review by [insert Office], completed on
[date]. The signed pre-dissemination
review and documentation form is on
file in that office.
List of Subjects in 15 CFR Part 922
Administrative practice and
procedure, Amendments, Authorization,
Commercial fishing, Cultural resources,
Definitions, Designation, Ecology,
Environmental protection, Habitat,
Marine resources, Maritime heritage,
Natural resources, Nomination,
Recreational fishing, Resources,
Research, Traditional uses, Tourism,
Water resources.
Dated: June 9, 2014.
Holly A. Bamford,
Assistant Administrator for Ocean Services
and Coastal Zone Management.

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth
above, NOAA amends 15 CFR part 922
as follows:
PART 922—NATIONAL MARINE
SANCTUARY PROGRAM
REGULATIONS
1. The authority citation for part 922
continues to read as follows:

■

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

E:\FR\FM\13JNR1.SGM

13JNR1

33860

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 114 / Friday, June 13, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

2. In § 922.3:
a. Remove the definition of ‘‘Active
Candidate’’;
■ b. Add a definition of ‘‘inventory’’;
and
■ c. Remove the definition of ‘‘Site
Evaluation List (SEL)’’.
The addition reads as follows:
■
■

§ 922.3

Definitions.

*

*
*
*
*
Inventory means a list of nominated
areas selected by the Director as
qualifying for future consideration of
designation as a national marine
sanctuary.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 3. Revise subpart B to read as follows:
Subpart B—Sanctuary Nomination
Process
Sec.
922.10 General.
922.11 Selection of nominated areas for
national marine sanctuary designation.

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

§ 922.10

General.

(a) Nomination process. The
sanctuary nomination process (see
National Marine Sanctuaries Web site
www.sanctuaries.noaa.gov) is the means
by which the public can submit areas of
the marine and Great Lakes
environments for consideration by
NOAA as a national marine sanctuary.
(b) National significance criteria. The
Director will consider the following in
determining if a nominated area is of
special national significance:
(1) The area’s natural resources and
ecological qualities are of special
significance and contribute to:
Biological productivity or diversity;
maintenance or enhancement of
ecosystem structure and function;
maintenance of ecologically or
commercially important species or
species assemblages; maintenance or
enhancement of critical habitat,
representative biogeographic
assemblages, or both; or maintenance or
enhancement of connectivity to other
ecologically significant resources.
(2) The area contains submerged
maritime heritage resources of special
historical, cultural, or archaeological
significance, that: Individually or
collectively are consistent with the
criteria of eligibility or listing on the
National Register of Historic Places;
have met or which would meet the
criteria for designation as a National
Historic Landmark; or have special or
sacred meaning to the indigenous
people of the region or nation.
(3) The area supports present and
potential economic uses, such as:
Tourism; commercial and recreational

VerDate Mar<15>2010

16:24 Jun 12, 2014

Jkt 232001

fishing; subsistence and traditional uses;
diving; and other recreational uses that
depend on conservation and
management of the area’s resources.
(4) The publicly-derived benefits of
the area, such as aesthetic value, public
recreation, and access to places depend
on conservation and management of the
area’s resources.
(c) Management considerations. The
Director will consider the following in
determining the manageability of a
nominated area:
(1) The area provides or enhances
opportunities for research in marine
science, including marine archaeology.
(2) The area provides or enhances
opportunities for education, including
the understanding and appreciation of
the marine and Great Lakes
environments.
(3) Adverse impacts from current or
future uses and activities threaten the
area’s significance, values, qualities, and
resources.
(4) A national marine sanctuary
would provide unique conservation and
management value for this area that also
have beneficial values for adjacent
areas.
(5) The existing regulatory and
management authorities for the area
could be supplemented or
complemented to meet the conservation
and management goals for the area.
(6) There are commitments or possible
commitments for partnerships
opportunities such as cost sharing,
office space or exhibit space, vessel
time, or other collaborations to aid
conservation or management programs
for the area.
(7) There is community-based support
for the nomination expressed by a broad
range of interests, such as: Individuals
or locally-based groups (e.g., friends of
group, chamber of commerce); local,
tribal, state, or national agencies; elected
officials; or topic-based stakeholder
groups, at the local, regional or national
level (e.g., a local chapter of an
environmental organization, a
regionally-based fishing group, a
national-level recreation or tourism
organization, academia or science-based
group, or an industry association).
(d) Following evaluation of a
nomination against the national
significance criteria and management
considerations, the Director may place
nominated areas in a publicly available
inventory for future consideration of
designation as a national marine
sanctuary.
(e) A determination that a site is
eligible for national marine sanctuary
designation, by itself shall not subject
the site to any regulatory control under

PO 00000

Frm 00012

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

the Act. Such controls may only be
imposed after designation.
§ 922.11 Selection of nominated areas for
national marine sanctuary designation.

(a) The Director may select a
nominated area from the inventory for
future consideration as a national
marine sanctuary.
(b) Selection of a nominated area from
the inventory shall begin the formal
sanctuary designation process. A notice
of intent to prepare a draft
environmental impact statement shall
be published in the Federal Register
and posted on the Office of National
Marine Sanctuaries Web site. Any
designation process will follow the
procedures for designation and
implementation set forth in section 304
of the Act.
§ 922.21
■

[Removed and Reserved]

4. Remove and reserve § 922.21.

§ 922.23

[Removed and Reserved]

■ 5. Remove and reserve § 922.23.
[FR Doc. 2014–13807 Filed 6–12–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–NK–P

PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY
CORPORATION
29 CFR Parts 4022 and 4044
Allocation of Assets in SingleEmployer Plans; Benefits Payable in
Terminated Single-Employer Plans;
Interest Assumptions for Valuing and
Paying Benefits
Pension Benefit Guaranty
Corporation.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:

This final rule amends the
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation’s
regulations on Benefits Payable in
Terminated Single-Employer Plans and
Allocation of Assets in Single-Employer
Plans to prescribe interest assumptions
under the benefit payments regulation
for valuation dates in July 2014 and
interest assumptions under the asset
allocation regulation for valuation dates
in the third quarter of 2014. The interest
assumptions are used for valuing and
paying benefits under terminating
single-employer plans covered by the
pension insurance system administered
by PBGC.
DATES: Effective July 1, 2014.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Catherine B. Klion (Klion.Catherine@
PBGC.gov), Assistant General Counsel
for Regulatory Affairs, Pension Benefit
Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K Street
SUMMARY:

E:\FR\FM\13JNR1.SGM

13JNR1