Is the US Navy banning diving on Military wrecks?

[njdiver1]

A proposed rule was recently filed and the public comment period of thirty days past, that may cause all diving on any military or government connected “sunken military craft” to require a permit from the Naval History and Heritage Command. This proposed rule slipped under our “radar” in the Department of Defense section of the Federal Register back in January. A gentleman with Wreck Diver magazine however did catch it and made the rounds at Beneath the Sea this weekend. He has compiled a few documents that explain what is being done by this rule and what can be done to halt the process to give more time for those affected by it to respond. If you would like a copy of these documents please email me. I have included several of the online available documents and other resources below.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-01-06/pdf/2013-31068.pdf

http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/fhpl/sunken_military_craft.pdf

http://csc.noaa.gov/data/Documents/OceanLawSearch/Summary of Law - Sunken Military Craft Act.pdf

SUNKEN MILITARY CRAFT

https://www.federalregister.gov/art...tions-and-other-activities-directed-at-sunken

http://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/Executive Order 13563.pdf

http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2804&context=dlj&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Fsearch%3Fq%3DA%2BCRITICAL%2BGUIDE%2BTO%2BTHE%2BREGULATORY%2BFLEXIBILITY%2BACT%26rls%3Dcom.microsoft%253Aen-us%26oe%3DUTF-8%26startIndex%3D%26startPage%3D1%26oq%3DA%2BCRITICAL%2BGUIDE%2BTO%2BTHE%2BREGULATORY%2BFLEXIBILITY%2BACT%26gs_l%3Dheirloom-serp.12...93187.110812.0.112125.3.1.0.2.0.0.141.141.0j1.1.0....0...1ac.1.34.heirloom-serp..3.0.0.yau4hUVMHZY#search=%22CRITICAL%20GUIDE%20REGULATORY%20FLEXIBILITY%20ACT%22

 

[kr2y5]

What do you expect will be the impact of this regulation on the existing wrecks at the NJ shore?

 

[njdiver1]

"Violators may be punished by a fine not to exceed $100,000 per violation, with each day of a violation counting as a separate incident, may be liable for damages, and may suffer loss of their vessel and other equipment associated with the violation."

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-01-06/pdf/2013-31068.pdf


After the first successful prosecution, how many dive boat captains would risk it?

 

[kr2y5]

Yeah. Pardon my ignorance, would this likely cover a significant fraction of the local wrecks in NJ? Does it sound like local dive boats might not be able to obtain / afford a permit?

 

[njdiver1]

If they push it to any sunken vessel that was carrying goverment property at the time of its sinking. This is still a proposed rule. It may have a temporary restraining order filed against it shortly.

 

[kr2y5]

Thanks, and thank you for being vigilant and publicizing this matter.

 

[Jared0425]

First we have to battle NOAA over the right to dive one rusted ironclad and then deal with an expansion of a sanctuary that goes from 400sq miles to 2500sq mi that encases pretty much the entire northern part of Lake Huron, and now the govt wants restrictions on wrecks that in reality they couldn't care less about. In wonder where the line in the sand will be drawn by divers like us who suffer under the euphinism protection in reality means control.

 

[Scubadude_LA]

Give me a F****** break! Rediculous!

Thanks a bunch for sharing this. Forwarding to as many like minded Buds as I can.

 

[The Chairman]

That would be a bad thing. I hope it gets axed!

 

[Akimbo]

I doubt that this could hold up in a court challenge... and for a $100 grand penalty you can be sure that there will be some.