Proposed Rule2024-00757
Shipping Safety Fairways Along the Atlantic Coast
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
January 19, 2024
Issuing agencies
Homeland Security DepartmentCoast Guard
Abstract
The Coast Guard is proposing to establish shipping safety fairways ("fairways") along the Atlantic Coast of the United States, identified in the Atlantic Coast Port Access Route Study. Fairways would preserve the safe and reliable transit of vessels along well- established traffic patterns and routes. While vessels are not required to use them, fairways are designed to keep traditional navigation routes free from fixed structures that could impact navigation safety and impede other shared offshore activities. The Coast Guard recognizes that there is increasing interest in offshore commercial development, including offshore renewable energy installations, and believes this development is best served by the establishment of consistent and well- defined fairways. The proposed fairways would help ensure that offshore developments remain viable by allowing developers to construct and maintain installations without risk of impeding vessel traffic. The Coast Guard is also proposing to establish traffic separation schemes and precautionary areas along the Atlantic coast to further improve navigation safety.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 89 Issue 13 (Friday, January 19, 2024)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 13 (Friday, January 19, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 3587-3613]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2024-00757]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Parts 166 and 167
[Docket No. USCG-2019-0279]
RIN 1625-AC57
Shipping Safety Fairways Along the Atlantic Coast
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is proposing to establish shipping safety
fairways (``fairways'') along the Atlantic Coast of the United States,
identified in the Atlantic Coast Port Access Route Study. Fairways
would preserve the safe and reliable transit of vessels along well-
established traffic patterns and routes. While vessels are not required
to use them, fairways are designed to keep traditional navigation
routes free from fixed structures that could impact navigation safety
and impede other shared offshore activities. The Coast Guard recognizes
that there is increasing interest in offshore commercial development,
including offshore renewable energy installations, and believes this
development is best served by the establishment of consistent and well-
defined fairways. The proposed fairways would help ensure that offshore
developments remain viable by allowing developers to construct and
maintain installations without risk of impeding vessel traffic. The
Coast Guard is also proposing to establish traffic separation schemes
and precautionary areas along the Atlantic coast to further improve
navigation safety.
DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before April 18, 2024.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2019-0279 using the Federal Decision Making Portal at
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>. See the ``Public Participation and Request for
Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further
instructions on submitting comments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information about this document
call or email Maureen Kallgren, Coast Guard; telephone 202-372-1561,
email <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d29fb3a7a0b7b7bcfc80fc99b3bebeb5a0b7bc92a7a1b1b5fcbfbbbe"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="7c311d090e191912522e52371d10101b0e19123c090f1f1b52111510">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents for Preamble
I. Public Participation and Request for Comments
II. Abbreviations
III. Basis and Purpose
IV. Background
V. Discussion of ANPRM Comments
VI. Discussion of Proposed Rule
VII. Regulatory Analyses
A. Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Small Entities
C. Assistance for Small Entities
D. Collection of Information
E. Federalism
F. Unfunded Mandates
G. Taking of Private Property
H. Civil Justice Reform
I. Protection of Children
J. Indian Tribal Governments
K. Energy Effects
L. Technical Standards
M. Environment
I. Public Participation and Request for Comments
The Coast Guard views public participation as essential to
effective rulemaking and will consider all comments and material
received during the comment period. Your comment can
[[Page 3588]]
help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment,
please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the
specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and
provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.
Submitting comments. We encourage you to submit comments through
the Federal Decision Making Portal at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>. To do so, go
to <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>, type USCG-2019-0279 in the search box and click
``Search.'' Next, look for this document in the Search Results column,
and click on it. Then click on the Comment option. If you cannot submit
your material by using <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>, call or email the person in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this proposed rule for
alternate instructions.
Viewing material in docket. To view documents mentioned in this
proposed rule as being available in the docket, find the docket as
described in the previous paragraph, and then select ``Supporting &
Related Material'' in the Document Type column. Public comments will
also be placed in our online docket and can be viewed by following
instructions on the <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> Frequently Asked Questions
(FAQ) web page. That FAQ page also explains how to subscribe for email
alerts that will notify you when comments are posted or if a final rule
is published. We review all comments received, but we will only post
comments that address the topic of the proposed rule. We may choose not
to post off-topic, inappropriate, or duplicate comments that we
receive.
Personal information. We accept anonymous comments. Comments we
post to <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> will include any personal information you
have provided. For more about privacy and submissions in response to
this document, see DHS's eRulemaking System of Records notice (85 FR
14226, March 11, 2020).
Public Meeting. We do not plan to hold a public meeting, but we
will consider doing so if we determine from public comments that a
meeting would be helpful. We would issue a separate Federal Register
notice to announce the date, time, and location of such a meeting.
II. Abbreviations
ACP American Clean Power
ACPARS Atlantic Coast Port Access Route Study
AIS Automatic Identification System
ANPRM Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
AWO American Waterways Operators
BOEM Bureau of Ocean Energy Management
BSEE Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement
Call Call for information and nominations
COMDTINST Commandant Instruction
COP Construction and Operation Plans
CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
[deg]T Degrees true
DHS Department of Homeland Security
EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone
EA Environmental Assessment
EIS Environmental impact statement
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ESA Environmental Species Act
Fairways Shipping safety fairways
FR Federal Register
GW Gigawatts
IMO International Maritime Organization
MMPA Marine Mammal Protection Act
MTS Marine Transportation System
MW Megawatts
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NAVCEN Coast Guard Navigation Center
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NM Nautical mile
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
OCS Outer Continental Shelf
OMB Office of Management and Budget
OREI Offshore renewable energy installation
PARS Port Access Route Studies
RFI Request for interest
SBA Small Business Administration
Sec. Section
TSS Traffic separation scheme
USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers
U.S.C. United States Code
USN United States Navy
WEA Wind energy area
WGS 84 World Geodetic System 1984
III. Basis and Purpose
Chapter 700, Ports and Waterways Safety, of Title 46 United States
Code (U.S.C.) authorizes the Secretary of the department in which the
Coast Guard is operating to take certain actions to advance port,
harbor, and coastal facility safety and security. Specifically, 46
U.S.C. 70001 and 70034 authorize the Secretary to promulgate
regulations to establish reporting and operating requirements,
surveillance and communications systems, routing systems, and fairways.
The Secretary has delegated this authority to the Commandant of the
Coast Guard (Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Delegation 00170.1,
Revision No. 01.3, paragraph (II)(70)).
This notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) proposes to codify
existing vessel traffic patterns into shipping safety fairways
(``fairways''), traffic separation schemes (TSSs), and precautionary
areas along the Atlantic Coast of the United States to facilitate
offshore development and ensure that traditional navigation routes are
kept free from fixed structures that could affect navigation safety.
The Coast Guard recognizes that current offshore development trends and
other increased shared commercial activities on the Outer Continental
Shelf (OCS) necessitate cohesion between industries. We believe that
OCS users are best served by establishing consistent and clearly
defined fairways that preserve historic shipping routes and safe access
to the Marine Transportation System (MTS). Fairways, TSSs, and
precautionary areas are designed to preserve traditional maritime
commerce routes and safe access to U.S. ports and protect them from
fixed structures that could impact navigation safety.
A shipping safety fairway is a lane or corridor, in which no fixed
structure is permitted, that sets aside areas of sufficient depth and
dimensions to accommodate vessels and to allow for the orderly and safe
movements of vessels transiting to or from ports. A TSS is a designated
routing measure that separates opposing streams of traffic into traffic
lanes, in which vessels all travel in roughly the same direction. A
precautionary area is a designated routing measure with defined limits,
where vessels must navigate with caution. These navigation systems
would help to manage expectations of use and development along the OCS
by communicating to the public the exact coordinates of established
shipping lanes and routes.
IV. Background
The Coast Guard seeks comments regarding the proposed establishment
of fairways, TSSs, and precautionary areas along the Atlantic Coast of
the United States, based on navigation safety corridors recommended by
the Atlantic Coast Port Access Route Study (ACPARS). In this section,
the Coast Guard provides background information on fairways, TSSs, the
ACPARS, and related Port Access Route Studies (PARS).
A. Shipping Safety Fairways and Traffic Separation Schemes
Section 70003 of Title 46 U.S.C. directs the Secretary of the
department in which the Coast Guard operates to designate necessary
fairways, TSSs, and precautionary areas that provide safe access routes
for vessels proceeding to and from U.S. ports. Designating a particular
area as a fairway establishes the requirement that the area remains
free of fixed structures that could pose navigational hazards or
impediments. Designating a particular area as a TSS separates opposing
streams of vessel traffic, and designating a particular area
[[Page 3589]]
as a precautionary area indicates where vessels should navigate with
particular caution.\1\ Fairways and TSSs \2\ are typically established
along existing and heavily traveled shipping routes. Accordingly, these
designations help maintain safe shipping and recognize the ``paramount
right of navigation'' over other uses within the designated areas.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ A fairway or shipping safety fairway is a lane or corridor
in which no artificial island or fixed structure, whether temporary
or permanent, will be permitted. Temporary underwater obstacles may
be permitted under certain conditions described for specific areas.
Aids to navigation approved by the Coast Guard may be established in
a fairway. See 33 CFR 166.105(a).
\2\ These terms are defined in 33 CFR 166.105(a) and 33 CFR
167.5(b), respectively.
\3\ See limitations on such designations in 46 U.S.C. 70003(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Coast Guard coordinates the possible establishment of fairways
along the Atlantic Coast, complementary port approaches, and
international entry and departure zones with the Bureau of Ocean Energy
Management (BOEM) and other users of waterways to guarantee
collaboration between offshore energy leasing efforts and efforts to
codify customary shipping routes. The Coast Guard is prohibited under
46 U.S.C. 70003(b)(1) from designating fairways, TSSs, and
precautionary areas in areas where such a designation would deprive any
person of the effective exercise of a vested right granted by a lease
or permit executed or issued under other applicable provisions of law.
Fairways and TSSs are designated through Federal regulations as
directed by 46 U.S.C. 70003. Regulations governing fairways in title 33
of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 166 provide that fixed
structures and artificial islands are not permitted within fairways
because these structures would jeopardize safe navigation. Regulations
governing TSSs and precautionary areas in 33 CFR part 167 provide
designated routing measures that separate opposing streams of traffic
by establishing a separation zone and traffic lanes. TSSs and
associated precautionary areas are submitted to the International
Maritime Organization (IMO) for adoption and international recognition
after the close of the public comment period and subsequent publication
of a final rule. Modifying an existing TSS may include adjustment of
the associated traffic lanes and separation zones for specific port
approaches. The Coast Guard has the authority to establish, modify, or
relocate existing fairways and TSSs to improve navigation safety and to
preserve unimpeded navigation where appropriate. See 46 U.S.C. 70003
and 33 CFR 166.110.
Before establishing or modifying fairways, TSSs, and precautionary
areas, 46 U.S.C. 70003(c)(1) requires the Coast Guard to study
potential traffic density and assess the need for safe access routes
for vessels in the area for which they are proposed. In accordance with
46 U.S.C. 70003(c)(2), the Coast Guard consulted with all required
Federal and appropriate State agencies while conducting the
consolidated PARS. In executing these studies, the Coast Guard
considered the views of the maritime community, environmental groups,
and other stakeholders to reconcile the need for safe access routes
with reasonable waterway uses to the extent practicable. See 46 U.S.C.
70003(c)(3). In addition to determining the necessary location for
fairways, TSSs, and precautionary areas, the studies also assessed
widths of fairways, TSSs, and precautionary areas based on vessel size
and maneuverability, and density of the predominant vessel traffic. As
part of its assessment, the Coast Guard attempts to recognize and
identify potential impacts and balance these against the need to
preserve safe navigation routes.
During the PARS process, and as required by 46 U.S.C. 70003(c)(2),
the Coast Guard considered competing uses of the OCS that may interfere
with the proposed fairways. The Coast Guard notes that it is not
mandatory for vessels to use fairways or TSSs. Rather, the primary
legal effect of establishing these fairways, TSSs, and precautionary
areas is to ensure that safe access to or from U.S. ports is available
for marine traffic, and to prevent the establishment of any artificial
island, fixed structure, or other impediment to vessel traffic. The
PARS process did not identify any existing or planned structures,
including existing wind energy area (WEA) leases, that would be
affected by any of the fairways, TSSs, and precautionary areas proposed
in this rule.
B. Atlantic Coast Port Access Route Study (ACPARS)
On May 11, 2011, the Coast Guard announced the ACPARS to address
potential navigational safety risks associated with offshore energy
development and to support future marine planning efforts. The Coast
Guard analyzed vessel traffic along the entire Atlantic Coast and
focused on waters located seaward of existing port approaches within
the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). This extensive study area
allowed the Coast Guard to consider vessel movements among both
domestic and international ports of call to inform marine planning for
the entire Atlantic seaboard. The Coast Guard used Automatic
Identification System (AIS) data and information from shipping
organizations to identify traditional navigation routes. The AIS data
identified customary routes transited by towing vessels and deep draft
vessels. Because these two vessel types have different maneuvering
capabilities and navigation safety requirements, the identification of
their customary routes and required fairway widths were studied
separately and aggregated for final recommendation in the ACPARS.
The Coast Guard announced the availability of the ACPARS report and
requested public comment in the Federal Register (FR) on March 14, 2016
(81 FR 13307). After considering comments submitted in response to that
notice, the Coast Guard determined that the report was complete as
published and announced this finding in the Federal Register on April
5, 2017 (82 FR 16510). The ACPARS report is available for public
viewing in several locations: (1) In the docket for this rulemaking, as
indicated in section I of this preamble, Public Participation and
Request for Comments; (2) in the docket for the ACPARS itself (docket
number USCG-2011-0351); and (3) at <a href="https://www.navcen.uscg.gov/port-access-route-study-reports">https://www.navcen.uscg.gov/port-access-route-study-reports</a>.
The ACPARS identified navigation safety corridors \4\ along the
Atlantic Coast that have the width necessary for safe navigation based
on the predominant two-way vessel traffic and customary routes
identified with AIS data.\5\ The ACPARS identified customary deep draft
vessel routes as navigation safety corridors and recommended developing
these corridors into official fairways or other appropriate vessel
routing measures. These routes should be given consideration over other
alternatives, in accordance with international law, as reflected in
Article 78 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
(``Convention''), which states, ``[t]he exercise of the rights of the
coastal State over the continental shelf must not infringe or result in
any unjustifiable
[[Page 3590]]
interference with navigation and other rights and freedoms of other
States as provided for this Convention.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Navigation safety corridor is a term used in the ACPARS
final report for areas required by vessels to safely transit along a
customary navigation route under all situations. A navigation safety
corridor is not inherently a routing measure and should not be
confused with fairways, two-way routes, or TSSs. Navigation safety
corridors have the potential to become a fairway, two-way route, or
a TSS but not until they receive such a designation from the Coast
Guard.
\5\ See pages i, 11, and 12, and Appendix VII of the ACPARS,
which is available in the docket <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/docket/USCG-2019-0279/document">https://www.regulations.gov/docket/USCG-2019-0279/document</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ACPARS also identified coastal navigation routes and navigation
safety corridors of an appropriate width to accommodate safe passage
for seagoing towing vessels.\6\ As identified in the ACPARS, a Quality
Action Team, sponsored by the Coast Guard and the American Waterways
Operators (AWO), articulated a need for 9 nautical mile (NM)-wide
fairways, where practicable, to account for the long towing cables
commonly used by the industry along the Atlantic Coast.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See pages i and 11, and Appendix VII (page 7) of the ACPARS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ACPARS recommended that the Coast Guard consider developing the
navigation safety corridors it identifies in Appendix VII--which
include navigation safety corridors for deep draft vessels and
navigation safety corridors closer to shore for towing vessels--into
official shipping safety fairways or other appropriate vessel routing
measures.\7\ Analysis of the sea space required for vessels to maneuver
led to developing marine planning guidelines that were included in the
ACPARS and were considered when identifying the navigation safety
corridors, in Appendix VII of the final report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See pages 12 and 16 of the ACPARS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Port Approaches and International Entry and Departure Transit Areas
PARS Integral to Efficiency of Possible Atlantic Coast Fairways
Recognizing that the ACPARS only analyzed coastal, longshore, and
predominantly north-south vessel transit routes along the Atlantic
Coast, the Coast Guard announced its intention to study four port
approaches and international entry and departure areas to supplement
the ACPARS on March 15, 2019, in the Federal Register (84 FR 9541).\8\
These studies were consolidated into a single report and considered the
same access routes that the ACPARS recommended be developed as fairways
or other appropriate vessel routing measures, from ports along the
Atlantic Coast to the navigation safety corridors. The ports that the
Coast Guard considered in these studies are economically important,
support military operations, or deemed strategically critical to
national defense. On September 9, 2022, the Coast Guard announced the
completion and availability of a consolidated PARS report in the
Federal Register (87 FR 55449) and provided a 90-day comment period for
the public (88 FR 15055). After considering comments submitted in
response to that notice, the Coast Guard determined that the report was
complete as published and announced this finding in the Federal
Register on August 28, 2023 (88 FR 58591).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ International Entry and Departure Transit Areas are
navigation routes followed by vessels entering or departing from the
United States through an international seaport. International entry
and departure transit areas connect navigation safety corridors
identified in the ACPARS to the outer limit of the U.S. EEZ. Port
approaches are navigation routes followed by vessels entering or
departing a seaport from or to a primary transit route. Port
approaches link seaports to navigation safety corridors identified
in the ACPARS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Results of PARS
The Coast Guard identified four port approach areas that required
further study: (1) the Northern New York Bight; (2) the Seacoast of New
Jersey including the offshore approaches to Delaware Bay; (3) the
approaches to Chesapeake Bay; and (4) the Seacoast of North Carolina,
including the offshore approaches to the Cape Fear River and Beaufort
Inlet, NC. The purpose of these additional PARS was to identify east
and west routes between port approaches on the east coast and these
proposed fairways. These PARS were conducted according to the
methodology outlined in United States Coast Guard Commandant
Instruction (COMDTINST) 16003.2B, Marine Planning to Operate and
Maintain the Marine Transportation System (MTS) and Implement National
Policy.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ <a href="https://media.defense.gov/2019/Jul/10/2002155400/-1/-1/0/CI_16003_2B.PDF">https://media.defense.gov/2019/Jul/10/2002155400/-1/-1/0/CI_16003_2B.PDF</a>. Last accessed March 1, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The recommendations from the ACPARS and the four consolidated PARS
in concert with public comments received from the advance notice of
proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) were considered for this NPRM (85 FR 37034,
June 19, 2020). The following is a summary of the recommendations of
each of the PARS:
Port Access Route Study: Northern New York Bight
On January 3, 2022, the Coast Guard announced the completion of the
Northern New York Bight PARS in the Federal Register (87 FR 107), which
is available for viewing and download from the docket at
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> or the Coast Guard Navigation Center's website at
<a href="https://www.navcen.uscg.gov/port-access-route-study-reports">https://www.navcen.uscg.gov/port-access-route-study-reports</a>. The First
Coast Guard District analyzed available sources of data relevant to
this process, including existing and potential traffic patterns,
existing regulations, public comments made in response to the draft
Northern New York Bight PARS, and other factors. These factors went
into considering whether the Coast Guard should revise existing
regulations to improve navigation safety in Northern New York Bight due
to vessel traffic density, vessel traffic patterns, weather conditions,
or navigation challenges in the study area. The results from the study
led to the following recommendations:
<bullet> Establish modified versions of the fairways proposed in
the ANPRM.
<bullet> Establish a New Jersey to New York Connector Fairway.
<bullet> Establish a Hudson Canyon to Ambrose Southeastern Fairway,
a Hudson Canyon to Ambrose Eastern Fairway, and a single Nantucket to
Ambrose Fairway.
<bullet> Widen the Long Island Fairway that was proposed in the
ANPRM.
<bullet> Modify the portion of the ANPRM that proposed the Cape
Charles to Montauk Point Fairway that crosses the NY Bight by renaming
it the Barnegat to Narragansett Fairway and adjusting coordinates to
reconcile conflicts with lease areas OCS-A 0544 and OCS-A 0549.
<bullet> Establish an Ambrose Anchorage and adjust the Long Island
Fairway to mitigate location conflict between the anchorage and
fairway.
The Coast Guard proposes to implement these recommendations in this
NPRM, with the following exceptions:
<bullet> The proposed Hudson Canyon to Ambrose Southeastern Fairway
would be extended out to the end of the EEZ (200 NM) to ensure that
safe access remains if expansion of offshore energy development
continues to the east.
<bullet> Reduce the width of the recommended single Nantucket to
Ambrose fairway to the northern border of the existing Nantucket to
Ambrose Fairway and the southern border of the Ambrose to Nantucket
Fairway as defined in 33 CFR 166.500. This will ensure there is
sufficient room for safe navigation and the resulting fairways do not
conflict with BOEM lease area OCS-A 0522.
<bullet> The establishment of the Ambrose Anchorage will not be
covered within this rulemaking as it has utility independent of the
fairways proposed in this rule. As this recommended anchorage would be
within U.S. navigable waters, the First Coast Guard District will
evaluate a possible rulemaking under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70006 for
an anchorage ground that would be codified in 33 CFR part 110.
In addition, the Coast Guard is proposing precautionary areas where
the proposed Barnegat to Narragansett
[[Page 3591]]
Fairway intersects with the Southern and Southeastern approaches to New
York. Although these precautionary areas were not recommended in the
Northern New York Bight PARS, the Coast Guard expects to see a
considerable amount of vessel traffic cross perpendicular to each other
at the intersection of the fairway with the traffic lanes. A
precautionary area would signify to mariners that they are transiting
through an area, ``where ships must navigate with particular caution,''
\10\ due to the perpendicular crossing of vessel traffic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Definition of Precautionary Area under Elements used in
traffic routing systems include: <a href="https://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Safety/Pages/ShipsRouteing.aspx">https://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Safety/Pages/ShipsRouteing.aspx</a>. Last accessed March 17, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Port Access Route Study: Seacoast of New Jersey Including Offshore
Approaches to the Delaware Bay, Delaware
On March 24, 2022, the Coast Guard announced the completion of the
Seacoast of New Jersey including offshore approaches to the Delaware
Bay, DE PARS in the Federal Register (87 FR 16759). The Fifth Coast
Guard District analyzed available sources of data relevant to this
process, including existing and potential traffic patterns, existing
regulations, public comments made in response to the draft PARS, and
other factors. These factors went into considering whether the Coast
Guard should revise existing regulations to improve navigation safety
off the coast of New Jersey and in the approaches to Delaware Bay due
to vessel traffic density, vessel traffic patterns, weather conditions,
or navigation challenges in the study area. The results from the study
led to the following recommendations:
<bullet> Establish modified versions of the fairways proposed in
the ANPRM.
<bullet> Extend the Off Delaware Bay: Eastern and Southeastern
approaches to the TSS past the currently leased wind farms in the
region, in lieu of establishing the Off Delaware Bay Eastern approach
Cutoff Fairway and Off Delaware Bay Southeastern approach Cutoff
Fairway.
<bullet> Establish additional precautionary areas where a wide
variety of vessel traffic converges east of the offshore renewable
energy installations (OREIs) under development.
<bullet> Establish a new two-way route along the Delaware seacoast
for safe transits into and across the mouth of the Delaware Bay by
coastwise vessels.
<bullet> Separate the Cape Charles to Montauk Fairway into two
distinct fairways and rename them to clarify endpoints. Rename the
southern portion Cape Charles to Delaware Bay and the northern portion
Barnegat to Narragansett, to clarify the divergence of the route as it
transits the mouth of the Delaware Bay and across the New York Bight.
<bullet> Establish the New Jersey to New York Connector Fairway
along the New Jersey coast and up into New York-New Jersey Harbor.
<bullet> Establish an offshore fairway anchorage in the area to the
east of the Off Delaware Bay: Southeastern approach to meet the needs
for safe anchorage areas around OREIs.
<bullet> Ensure coordination of fairways and TSSs crossing District
boundaries, and widen fairways to 9 NM, where practicable.
The Coast Guard proposes to implement these recommendations in this
NPRM, with the following exceptions:
<bullet> The recommended reorientation of the St. Lucie to New
York: Delaware Bay Connector Fairway, combined with the location of the
St. Lucie to New York Fairway, and the recommended offshore
Precautionary Area adjacent to the offshore terminus of the
Southeastern approach leaves very little open sea space between the
connector fairway and the proposed St. Lucie to New York Fairway. The
Coast Guard proposes combining the Connector Fairway with the St. Lucie
to New York Fairway and widening it in the general vicinity of the
approaches to Delaware Bay. This would allow for the additional sea
space needed for vessels maneuvering in the area and provide for a more
natural approach to the Southeastern approach TSS, as supported by
customary traffic patterns and BOEM. This would also provide a larger
contiguous area for further offshore wind development.
<bullet> The Cape Charles to Montauk Fairway as proposed in the
ANPRM conflicted with BOEM lease area OCS-A 0490. The recommendations
from the New Jersey PARS reconcile this conflict by providing a fairway
near the shore that crosses at the mouth of the Delaware Bay. Public
comments received from mariners operating in the Delaware Bay area
continued to urge the Coast Guard to consider a route that allows for
safe, unobstructed transit seaward of the OREI development projects
that connects back to the proposed New Jersey to New York Connector
Fairway. The Coast Guard is proposing the Offshore Delaware Bay to New
Jersey Connector Fairway to meet this need.
<bullet> The Coast Guard concurs with the recommendation for
offshore precautionary areas where a wide variety of vessel traffic
converges east of the OREI development projects. To account for the
proposed combining of the St. Lucie to New York: Delaware Bay Connector
Fairway with the St. Lucie to New York Fairway and the proposed
Offshore Delaware Bay to New Jersey Connector Fairway, the proposed
size and location of the precautionary areas at the convergence point
of these fairways with the Eastern and Southeastern approaches have
been adjusted to best meet the recommendations of the Fifth Coast Guard
District and highlight areas that require particular caution when
navigating.
<bullet> The Coast Guard is not proposing to establish a new two-
way route as recommended in the New Jersey PARS. To account for the
recommended orientation of the Cape Charles to Delaware Bay Fairway,
the expansion of fairways to 9 NM where practicable, and the dense
traffic at the entrance to Delaware Bay, the Coast Guard is proposing
an expansion of the current precautionary area. This expansion would
encompass the convergence of the proposed Cape Charles to Delaware Bay
Fairway and the New Jersey to New York Connector Fairway with the
established TSS. Expanding the precautionary area would appropriately
caution the mariners transiting in the area while maximizing the
freedom of navigation for opposing vessel traffic.
<bullet> The Coast Guard proposes to extend the recommended New
Jersey to New York Connector Fairway south to connect with the proposed
precautionary area expansion at the entrance to Delaware Bay. This
expansion would absorb a portion of the established two-way route to
the north of the approaches to Delaware Bay. Designating the water
surrounding the two-way route would preserve current traffic flow and
customary routes in the region, while ensuring ample sea space is
available for future offshore energy development.
Port Access Route Study: Approaches to the Chesapeake Bay, Virginia
On October 22, 2021, the Coast Guard announced the completion of
the approaches to the Chesapeake Bay, Virginia PARS in the Federal
Register (86 FR 58684). The Fifth Coast Guard District analyzed
available sources of data relevant to this process, including existing
and potential traffic patterns, existing regulations, public comments
made in response to the draft, approaches to the Chesapeake Bay,
Virginia PARS, and other factors. These factors went into considering
whether the Coast Guard should revise existing
[[Page 3592]]
regulations to improve navigation safety off the coast of Virginia and
in the approaches to Chesapeake Bay due to vessel traffic density,
vessel traffic patterns, weather conditions, or navigation challenges
in the study area. The results from the study led to the following
recommendations:
<bullet> The IMO's adoption of expanded precautionary area between
the Eastern and Southern TSS approaches to Chesapeake Bay.
<bullet> Modifications to fairways, as proposed in the ANPRM, to
include:
[cir] Re-orienting the Chesapeake Bay to Delaware Bay Eastern
approach Cutoff Fairway to increase available maneuvering space for
crossing vessels in the approaches to Delaware Bay, and to allow space
for an offshore anchorage in the approach to the Delaware Bay.
[cir] Re-orienting the Cape Charles to Montauk Point Fairway to
route closer to the Delmarva Peninsula.
[cir] Adding northern and southern connector fairways from the St.
Lucie to New York Fairway and the Chesapeake Bay TSS, around the
Commercial Virginia Offshore Wind project area, to facilitate safe
transit of commercial vessels around future offshore energy
installations.
The Coast Guard proposes to incorporate these recommendations in
this NPRM, with the following exceptions:
<bullet> All proposed fairways would be widened to 9 NM or the
maximum sea space practicable based on comments received from the AWO
and the tug and tow community.
<bullet> The Cape Charles to Montauk Point Fairway would be divided
into three distinct sections, as identified in the New Jersey PARS and
the Northern New York Bight PARS. The southernmost section would be
renamed the Cape Charles to Delaware Bay Fairway.
<bullet> The Delaware Bay Connector Fairway would reorient to the
east and be combined into the St. Lucie to New York Fairway to better
support the vessel traffic flow in and out of the Delaware Bay
Southeastern approach.
Port Access Route Study: Seacoast of North Carolina
On May 16, 2022, the Coast Guard announced the completion of the
Seacoast of North Carolina Including Approaches to the Cape Fear River
and Beaufort Inlet, NC PARS in the Federal Register (87 FR 29756). The
Fifth Coast Guard District analyzed all available sources of data
relevant to this process. These sources of data include existing and
potential traffic patterns, existing regulations, public comments made
in response to the draft PARS Seacoast of North Carolina, including
approaches to the Cape Fear River and Beaufort Inlet, NC, and other
factors. These factors went into considering whether the Coast Guard
should revise existing regulations to improve navigation safety off the
coast of North Carolina including the approaches to the Cape Fear River
and Beaufort Inlet, due to vessel traffic density, vessel traffic
patterns, weather conditions, or navigation challenges in the study
area. The results from the study led to the following recommendations:
<bullet> Establish modified versions of the fairways proposed in
the ANPRM.
<bullet> Establish a precautionary area at the offshore terminus of
the TSS in the approaches to the Cape Fear River.
<bullet> Establish the Beaufort Inlet Connector, Cape Fear
Southeastern Connector, and Cape Fear Southwestern Connector fairways.
The Coast Guard proposes to incorporate these recommendations in
this NPRM, with the following exceptions:
<bullet> The recommended Cape Fear Southwestern approach Connector
Fairway would end at the PARS study area. After consulting with the
Seventh Coast Guard District, the Coast Guard proposes extending this
fairway past the Cape Romain Call Area to the approaches of Charleston,
SC. This extension would ensure vessels transiting along this nearshore
route have unobstructed, safe passage to the Cape Fear River as future
OREI development continues. This extension will not be affected by
future PARS underway in the Southeast Atlantic off the coast of South
Carolina. Future rulemakings will be considered after the conclusion of
these ongoing studies.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Seventh Coast Guard District Southeast Atlantic Coast Port
Access Route Study: Port Approaches and International Entry and
Departure Transit Areas, found at USCG-2022-0347.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
<bullet> Combine the portions of the St. Lucie to Chesapeake Bay
Nearshore and Offshore fairways from St. Lucie, FL to Cape Hatteras, NC
into a single St. Lucie to Hatteras Fairway.
E. Approach to Regulatory Development
The Coast Guard is familiar with the competing demands between
preserving unobstructed vessel navigation routes and the spatial needs
of offshore development. In the 1940s in the Gulf of Mexico, the advent
of increasingly significant numbers of oil installations in the Gulf
soon demonstrated the reality of conflict between navigational and
resource extraction uses of the same ocean space and the nature of the
resulting economic loss and physical danger. Instances of navigational
confusion, near-collision, and collisions began to occur.\12\ Lessons
learned from participating in the process of establishing those
fairways in the Gulf taught the Coast Guard to mitigate the impact on
vessel operators and offshore developers by releasing the dimensions of
the proposed fairways as soon as possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Ocean Navigation Fairways through Gulf of Mexico
``Oilfields''; William L. Griffin; Coast and Geodetic Survey,
Environmental Science Services Administration, United States
Department of Commerce; <a href="https://journals.lib.unb.ca/index.php/ihr/article/download/24035/27820/36382">https://journals.lib.unb.ca/index.php/ihr/article/download/24035/27820/36382</a>. Last accessed May 24, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, unlike the mineral-based installations in the Gulf of
Mexico that generally consist of a single installation or a tight
cluster of 3 to 5 structures encompassing a singular facility, OREI
developments are usually comprised of a much larger network of
interconnected turbines that encompass a larger contiguous area.
Considering the massive geographic scope of this proposed rule, which
is partially caused by the large footprints of these OREI developments,
the Coast Guard considers it necessary to gather additional information
before initiating the NEPA process. The Coast Guard believes it would
benefit from the public comment process that follows the publication of
a proposed rule, which will help the Coast Guard narrow the range of
reasonable alternatives and identify issues that need to be considered
in the required environmental review. Therefore, the Coast Guard is
publishing this NPRM and the coordinates of the proposed fairways
before it starts the environmental analysis that normally accompanies
the proposed rule.
Following the close of the comment period for the NPRM, the Coast
Guard will consider comments and adjust the proposed rule if needed.
Then, the Coast Guard will publish a notice of intent consistent with
this NPRM and announce it in the Federal Register as required by 40 CFR
1501.9.
The Coast Guard intends to prepare a draft EIS, file it with the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and then add the draft EIS
to the docket of this NPRM. The EPA will publish a notice of
availability for public review in the Federal Register. At that time,
the Coast Guard will reopen the public comment period, allowing for the
public to comment on the draft EIS. During the comment period, the
public will also be able to comment on the alternatives, contents,
recommendations, and impact of the analysis in this proposed rule.
[[Page 3593]]
If the analysis or subsequent comments determines there is a
substantive change to the dimensions of the proposed fairways, TSSs,
and precautionary areas, the Coast Guard will issue a Supplemental
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (SNPRM) that will detail any departures
from the fairways, TSSs, and precautionary areas proposed in this NPRM.
If the analyses confirm the viability of the proposed fairways, TSSs,
and precautionary areas, we will proceed on to the final rule stage.
The Coast Guard will complete the NEPA review process at the time of
the final rule. The Coast Guard will issue a final EIS with the final
rule and waive the requirement for a 30-day time period between the
final EIS and the record of decision as allowed under 40 CFR
1506.11(c)(2).
The Coast Guard met with offshore wind industry group American
Clean Power (ACP) on August 22, 2023 to discuss the impact of the
proposed fairways on ongoing BOEM leasing activities in the Central
Atlantic. ACP proposed a re-orientation of two of the proposed
fairways, with the goal of expanding overall acreage available for
leasing in the Central Atlantic. The Coast Guard listened to ACP's
proposal, explained that there is still ample time to suggest changes
to the proposed fairways, and encouraged them to submit their proposal
in a comment to this NPRM. The Coast Guard memorialized this meeting in
a Memorandum of Record, which is available in the docket. The Coast
Guard also participated in a meeting with ACP and the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), convened by OIRA on October
10, 2023, during review of this rule pursuant to Executive Order 12866,
in which ACP shared additional information about their proposed re-
orientation.\13\ The Coast Guard seeks comments on any suggested
reorientations of the fairways, TSSs, and precautionary areas proposed
in this NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ For further information on this meeting, please visit
<a href="https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/viewEO12866Meeting?viewRule=false&rin=1625-AC57&meetingId=225623&acronym=1625-DHS/USCG">https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/viewEO12866Meeting?viewRule=false&rin=1625-AC57&meetingId=225623&acronym=1625-DHS/USCG</a> (last visited on Dec.
13, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
F. BOEM Leasing Process
Establishing fairways, TSSs, and precautionary areas is
inextricably linked with energy development on the OCS. It is important
to note that the Coast Guard works with BOEM during both the leasing
and the fairway establishment processes to ensure cooperation among
competing uses of the MTS.
Regional Intergovernmental Renewable Energy Task Forces are a key
mechanism that BOEM uses to help shape its approach to offshore
renewable energy development. These task forces consist of
representatives from federally recognized Tribes, Federal agencies,
States, and local governments, including the Coast Guard. BOEM's task
forces serve as forums to coordinate planning; gather data; solicit
feedback; educate about BOEM's processes, permitting, and statutory
requirements; and exchange scientific and other information. BOEM's
task forces work in parallel and are integrated into the more formal
area identification and competitive leasing processes described below,
with a particular focus on early identification of potential
conflicting uses of the OCS and strategies for balancing the needs of
all sea and seabed users. BOEM is currently actively engaged with
several regional task forces in the Atlantic, including the Central
Atlantic, Gulf of Maine, New York Bight, and Carolina Long Bay.
The current process by which BOEM issues competitive leases and
grants is defined in 30 CFR part 585, subpart B. Typically, BOEM begins
the competitive leasing process by publishing in the Federal Register a
request for interest (RFI) in leasing all or part of a region of the
OCS for renewable energy activities. The RFI is followed by a
subsequent Federal Register publication calling for information and
nominations (``Call''). The Call requests that developers explicitly
nominate areas on the OCS for potential commercial OREI development, in
addition to soliciting general information to further inform BOEM's
understanding of ocean uses in the area. BOEM uses the feedback from
the RFI and the Call to inform marine spatial models evaluating the
area's potential suitability for offshore wind energy development, and
to assess competitive interest in bidding for specified OCS areas.
After BOEM identifies potential areas on the OCS for OREI development,
BOEM then evaluates the potential impacts of leasing those areas on the
human, marine, and coastal environments under the OCS Lands Act \14\
and subsequently consults with Federal agencies and affected States
regarding the requirements of other potentially applicable Federal
statutes.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ 43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Throughout BOEM's competitive leasing process as defined in 30 CFR
part 585, BOEM engages with the applicable task force and directly with
other Federal agencies, including the Coast Guard, whom BOEM relies on
to assist with identifying potential maritime conflicts. This
engagement is iterative throughout the development of commercial leases
from the RFI to the competitive lease sale because the interests and
needs of both OREI and the maritime industry, as well as States and the
Federal agencies, are dynamic and evolving over time. Codifying
traditional shipping lanes into fairways, TSSs, and precautionary areas
would have the effect of providing relevant stakeholders with pertinent
information earlier in the competitive lease process.
V. Discussion of ANPRM Comments
On June 19, 2020, the Coast Guard published an ANPRM announcing the
possible establishment of fairways along the Atlantic Coast of the
United States identified in the ACPARS.\16\ To engage the public early
and often throughout this complex and dynamic process, the ANPRM
solicited comments on the establishment of such fairways and presented
the public with 15 questions. The Coast Guard received 24 comment
submissions addressing the potential fairways identified in the ANPRM
and answering these questions. The questions were focused on the
necessity of the proposed fairways, the dimensions of the proposed
fairways, and the potential impacts of the fairways to industry, the
environment, or other affected populations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ 85 FR 37034, June 19, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After a thorough review of comments received, the Coast Guard
summarized the issues raised. The Coast Guard then organized the issues
by subject matter and their responses, which are presented below.
A. BOEM Leases
The Coast Guard received many comments expressing concern that the
proposed fairways identified in the ANPRM would infringe on existing
leases that stakeholders hold with BOEM and a comment that fairway and
lease overlaps could result in substantive economic impacts on OREI
development. The comments urged the Coast Guard to avoid routing
fairways through leaseholds, specifically those leases off the coasts
of the Maryland, Virginia, and Kitty Hawk, North Carolina. BOEM and
other stakeholders alerted the Coast Guard of the potential overlap
between the fairways described in the ANPRM and the aforementioned
leases. In response to these comments, the Coast Guard has adjusted the
fairways proposed in this NPRM to eliminate all overlaps, thereby
addressing the concern of potential
[[Page 3594]]
economic impacts on OREI development. The new proposed fairways
adjustments are as follows:
The portion of the proposed Cape Charles to Montauk Fairway that
was described in the ANPRM ran through lease area OCS-A 0490 (U.S.
Wind). This fairway is now proposed to be rerouted off the coast of
Ocean City, MD to the North to intersect with the Delaware Bay
Precautionary Area. This adjustment moves the closest point between the
proposed fairway and the U.S. Wind's lease area to approximately 3 NM.
This segment was renamed the Cape Charles to Delaware Bay Fairway.
The portion of the Cape Charles to Montauk Fairway that was
proposed in the ANPRM to run along the New Jersey Coast conflicted with
lease areas OCS-A 0498 (Ocean Wind) and 0499 (Atlantic Shores). Note
that since publication of the ANPRM, BOEM has split OCS-A 0498 into
lease areas 0498 and 0532, and OCS-A 0499 was split into 0499 and 0549.
This portion of the fairway overlapped as much as 2 NM into the lease
areas. In response to this overlap, the fairway was moved towards the
shore to reconcile the conflicts. The border of the fairway would now
abut the lease areas, but since the total fairway width includes the
recommended buffer zones, additional setbacks are not necessary.
Developers would be able to build up to the border of their respective
leases as long as no overhang of appurtenances extends out of the lease
area into the fairway. This segment of the proposed Cape Charles to
Montauk Fairway was extended up into New York and renamed the New
Jersey to New York Connector Fairway.
The portion of the proposed St. Lucie to Chesapeake Bay Offshore
Fairway that was described in the ANPRM conflicted with lease area OCS-
A 0508 (Kitty Hawk) by approximately 67 yards. This portion of the
fairway was moved that distance toward shore. The border of the
proposed fairway would now abut the Kitty Hawk lease area, but no
additional setbacks are necessary. The developer would be able to build
up to the border of the lease as long as no overhang of appurtenances
extends out of the lease area into the fairway. This segment of the
proposed St. Lucie to Chesapeake Bay Offshore Fairway has been renamed
the Hatteras to Chesapeake Bay Fairway.
A portion of the proposed Cape Charles to Montauk Fairway from
Barnegat, NJ to Narragansett, RI that was described in the ANPRM
overlapped with the northernmost tip of the Atlantic Shores lease (now
OCS-A 0549). Additionally, since the ANPRM was published, BOEM
auctioned six additional lease areas in the New York Bight Area. The
fairway proposed in the ANPRM would have intersected with OCS-A 0544
(Hudson North). The proposed adjustments and reorienting of this
portion of the fairway--now the Barnegat to Narragansett Fairway--
removed any overlap and thus reconciled any potential conflict between
the proposed fairway and lease areas. The border of the fairway would
abut lease area OCS-A 0544, but no additional setbacks are necessary.
The developer would be able to build up to the border of the lease as
long as no overhang of appurtenances extends out of the lease area into
the fairway.
The Coast Guard will continue to work with BOEM throughout this
rulemaking to ensure that any potential conflicts are identified and
resolved. The Coast Guard believes that the establishment of consistent
and clearly defined fairways will further development on the OCS going
forward.
B. Fairway Width
The Coast Guard received many comments asking about the width of
proposed fairways, buffer zones around proposed fairways, and whether
the width of proposed fairways will include these buffer zones. The
proposed fairways vary in width depending on location and may be
adjusted before the publication of a potential final rule. The
dimensions for the fairways, TSSs, and precautionary areas proposed in
this NPRM are listed in tables 1 through 33 and the proposed regulatory
text.
Buffer zones are included within the width of the proposed
fairways. The Coast Guard designed the proposed fairways' dimensions to
accommodate the vessel traffic needs for a given reach of the Atlantic
Coast. Accordingly, the design features for the segments of the
fairways proposed in this NPRM vary in width and include buffer zones
of up to 2 NM to ensure efficient and safe passage of opposing traffic
streams.
The Coast Guard also received a comment that inquired whether Post-
Panamax vessels would be considered in this NPRM. Panamax vessels were
built to the maximum size that the Panama Canal could accommodate at
the time. However, the Panama Canal was expanded in 2016, thereby
leading to an even larger class of vessels known as Post-Panamax. The
Coast Guard considered Post-Panamax vessels in both the ACPARS and in
other related PARS, which are publicly available. As a result, Post-
Panamax vessels have been considered and will be able to use the
fairways in the same way as any other ship.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See page 18 of Appendix VI of the ACPARS Final Report,
pages 15 through 16 of the Chesapeake Bay PARS Final Report, and
page 2 of the Cape Fear River PARS Report. These reports are
available online at <a href="https://www.navcen.uscg.gov/port-access-route-study-reports">https://www.navcen.uscg.gov/port-access-route-study-reports</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some commenters asked whether different vessel types would use
different types of fairways. For example, one commenter asked if deep-
draft vessels would have separate fairways from tug and barge vessels.
While the Coast Guard considered the historical routes for the
different types of vessels when it determined the location of the
fairways along the Atlantic Coast, the Coast Guard does not designate
fairways for specific vessel types. Therefore, the proposed fairways
would be accessible to any type of vessel.
There were several comments on the ANPRM that recommended specific
routes for proposed fairways to take. For example, one commenter
suggested adding a fairway to route traffic away from the proposed New
York Bight WEA. The Coast Guard considered each of these specific
concerns in the PARS described in section IV.D., Results of PARS, and
has included these recommendations in this NPRM.
C. Marine Mammals
The Coast Guard received several comments about the effect of the
proposed fairways on marine mammals, particularly North Atlantic right
whales. The Coast Guard will evaluate the potential for interactions
with a variety of species, including the North Atlantic right whale,
and will coordinate with the responsible Federal resource agency or
agencies pursuant to the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Marine
Mammal Protection Act (MMPA).
The data collection regarding potential for interactions with
marine mammals is currently in progress and the analysis will be
initiated as soon as possible, along with the necessary interagency
coordination, and the Coast Guard will complete associated
consultations during the regulatory development process before
promulgating a final rule.
The Coast Guard will evaluate the potential environmental effects
associated with this proposed rule and will provide documentation for
public review and comment in the docket. For more information on the
docket, see the Public Participation and Request for Comments section
of this preamble. The Coast Guard will announce the availability of
this material in the Federal Register. More information on the Coast
Guard's environmental
[[Page 3595]]
analysis for this proposed rule can be found in section VII.M.
Environment.
D. Competing Uses
The Coast Guard received a few comments about the proposed
fairways' effects on existing water-dependent uses of the study area,
including commercial and recreational fishing, scuba diving, and other
recreational activities, including those competing uses in conjunction
with established artificial reefs.
Section 166.105 of title 33 of the CFR defines a shipping safety
fairway as ``a lane or corridor in which no artificial island or fixed
structure, whether temporary or permanent, will be permitted.'' The
Coast Guard does not expect competing uses, such as fishing, scuba
diving, or other similar activities, whether commercial or
recreational, to be affected by the proposed fairways.
In 33 CFR 64.06, structures are defined as ``any fixed or floating
obstruction, intentionally placed in the water, which may interfere
with or restrict marine navigation.'' This section also defines an
obstruction as ``anything that restricts, endangers, or interferes with
navigation.'' There are currently several artificial reefs along the
Atlantic Coast between Florida and Rhode Island located within the
proposed fairways. The Coast Guard reviewed and considered these
artificial reefs during the PARS. The studies found that the artificial
reefs do not interfere or restrict marine navigation, and therefore are
not considered obstructions or structures for the purpose of this
rulemaking. Additionally, the proposed fairways would be in locations
where a majority of vessel traffic currently transit and do not impact
use of the artificial reefs. Because the traditional activities
associated with the artificial reefs, such as recreational diving and
fishing would not be prohibited within a fairway and these activities
already safely coexist with the shipping in the proposed fairway
locations, these activities would not be impacted.
One commenter asked whether the proposed fairways would have a
negative impact on U.S. Navy (USN) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) activities. While conducting the PARS, the Coast Guard
regularly engaged with the USN and USACE and discussed proposals for
fairways, TSSs, and precautionary areas. Both agencies indicated they
do not anticipate any impact to operations.
One commenter asked if underwater cables had been considered and if
they would affect the proposed fairways. The Coast Guard has considered
all known underwater cables and their potential impacts on the proposed
fairways, TSS, and precautionary areas. None were found to restrict,
endanger, or interfere with navigation. The Coast Guard works as a
cooperating agency with BOEM for OREI development and with the USN and
U.S. Department of Defense for submarine cables used for
communications, and will continue to ensure that any future underwater
cables do not impact safe navigation and that vessels avoid harm to
underwater cables.
E. Rulemaking Process
The Coast Guard received a few comments regarding this rulemaking
process. One commenter asked whether the Coast Guard plans to hold a
public meeting to discuss this rulemaking. While the Coast Guard does
not, at this time, plan to hold a public meeting, it is open to the
idea and may do so if it determines from public comments that a meeting
would be helpful. If the Coast Guard decides to hold a public meeting
to discuss this rulemaking it will publish a document in the Federal
Register announcing any public meetings.
Some commenters asked how coastal States would be involved with
this rulemaking. Since establishing fairways, TSSs, and precautionary
areas constitutes a Federal action proposed within or outside the
coastal zone that could affect the use of land or water resources or
natural resources of coastal States, the Coast Guard will review the
potential for this action to result in reasonably foreseeable effects
on those resources. Within this process, the Coast Guard will engage
the coastal States, as required by 33 U.S.C. 70003(c)(2), to better
understand the potential impact of this proposed rule. The Coast Guard
will use information collected from the ANPRM, the ACPARS, the four
PARS consolidated with the ACPARS, the involved States' coastal
management programs, comments received in response to this NPRM, and
commercially available information to determine whether the Coast
Guard's proposed action would result in coastal effects.
The Coast Guard will coordinate with each of the involved coastal
States pursuant to the Federal consistency requirements and seek a
consistency determination or a negative determination, as appropriate,
prior to publishing a final rule.\18\ During this process, the Coast
Guard's environmental specialists will make a preliminary determination
with regard to the proposed rule's impact on any land or water use or
natural resource of an affected State's coastal zone (such effects are
also referred to as ``coastal effects'' or ``effects on any coastal use
or resource'').\19\ If the proposed action is consistent with the
enforceable coastal policies of the State, and there is no reasonably
foreseeable impact on coastal lands, uses, and the health of natural
resources, the Coast Guard will submit a negative determination to the
impacted State. If there is such a reasonably foreseeable impact on the
health of those coastal resources, the Coast Guard will prepare and
submit a consistency determination to the affected State, which
requires a lengthy and detailed analysis of any potential impacts to
lands, uses, and resources that are covered under that State's coastal
management program. In either case, each State must concur with the
Coast Guard's determination before the rulemaking process can proceed
to a final decision. If a State concurs with a negative determination,
then the Coast Guard can proceed in the most efficient manner possible
under the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) (16 U.S.C. 1451-1465). The
Coast Guard would be able to continue the rulemaking process without
preparing a full CZMA consistency package and associated coordination
with the State entity that administers that State's coastal management
program. Coordinating with this State entity may also require
coordinating with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's
National Ocean Service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See 15 CFR part 930.
\19\ These terms are defined in 15 CFR 930.11(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If a consistency determination is required, the Coast Guard will
demonstrate how it arrived at its preliminary determination that the
Atlantic Fairways scheme is consistent to the maximum extent
practicable with the enforceable policies unique to each State's
coastal management program. The Coast Guard will finalize its
coordination strategy with the involved coastal States in due course
and may consider taking a regional approach for meeting its Federal
consistency requirements. In such a case, the Coast Guard would
consider, at a minimum, the common denominator of the involved States'
coastal management policies, and thereby address the different States'
policies with one discussion and determination. Any remaining items,
such as unique issues or items held in common with a subset of States,
would be addressed in an accompanying narrative. If the Coast Guard
does not take this approach, the Coast Guard will issue consistency
determinations or negative
[[Page 3596]]
determinations to each State pursuant to 15 CFR 930.39, requesting
their concurrence. This process will use this rulemaking's docket as an
interface for documents subject to public review, meaning anyone who
wants to comment on this process will be able to find all the documents
associated with it easily at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/docket/USCG-2019-0279">https://www.regulations.gov/docket/USCG-2019-0279</a>. Items that are not subject to public review would be
communicated directly with the State officials that are responsible for
administering that State's coastal consistency process. If a
consistency determination is required, the Coast Guard will publish a
document in the Federal Register announcing that one is necessary and
explaining the next steps.
F. ACPARS Methodology
The Coast Guard received a few comments that were critical of the
ACPARS and the processes used to determine the recommended fairways.
The Coast Guard published the interim ACPARS report in the Federal
Register on September 11, 2012 (77 FR 55781) and requested public
comments. The Coast Guard published a document responding to public
comments critiquing the ACPARS in the Federal Register on April 5, 2017
(82 FR 16510). The final version of the ACPARS report was published in
the Federal Register on March 14, 2016 (81 FR 13307). After reviewing
the comments received, the Coast Guard determined that it was
unnecessary to revise the final report and so, the Coast Guard is
relying on that study as expanded in the Consolidated Port Approaches
Port Access Route Studies (CPAPARS) to propose these fairways as
directed under 46 U.S.C. 70003(c)(1).
Some commenters asked about the possibility of vessel traffic
density increasing because of the proposed fairways. The proposed
fairways are located in areas that have been customary shipping routes,
and therefore any impact on vessel traffic behavior is expected to be
minimal. Establishing fairways, TSSs, and precautionary areas should
serve to maintain the status quo regarding vessel traffic behavior. The
locations of the proposed fairways were determined based on
approximately 95 percent of the vessel traffic traveling in the same or
opposing directions. The width of the fairways was then determined
considering the total amount of possible traffic, accounting for the
potential increase in traffic density. By designating these sections of
the waterways as fairways, safe passage around offshore energy
installations can be available for vessels, and the number of vessels
needing to reroute around these installations would be minimized.
VI. Discussion of Proposed Rule
The Coast Guard is proposing to codify historically traveled
shipping routes into fairways, as defined by 33 CFR 166.105, and TSSs
and precautionary areas, as defined by 33 CFR 167.5. This proposed rule
is intended to facilitate offshore development, preserve traditional
shipping routes, protect maritime commerce, and maintain navigational
safety amidst growing offshore activity along the Atlantic Coast.
Designating these portions of the waterways as fairways, TSSs, and
precautionary areas is intended to maintain traditional shipping routes
and continue to ensure that these navigation lanes remain free of fixed
structures. This NPRM does not mandate that any vessel(s) use the newly
established fairways; therefore, vessels would continue to traverse
U.S. jurisdictional waters without restriction and use the most
efficient route(s) to their destinations.
The Coast Guard recognizes the need for fairways to address
increasing OCS activity and potential future trends in offshore energy
development along the Atlantic Coast. The Coast Guard has a duty to
ensure that vessels have a safe, unimpeded, and efficient route from
sea to port and, for developers, from port to the lease site and back.
Without promulgating this rule, BOEM could propose to establish energy
development facilities (wind turbines and other fixed structures) that
could be in historical maritime vessel routes, conflicting with
existing maritime uses and users. With that in mind, the Coast Guard
continues to engage with BOEM during the development of this NPRM,
throughout the course of the PARS, and during the offshore leasing
development processes to ensure that proposed offshore energy lease
areas and proposed fairways, TSSs, and precautionary areas coexist
without interference.
A. Proposed Fairways
In this NPRM, the Coast Guard is proposing 18 fairways and 1
fairway anchorage. These fairways are based on the fairways described
in the ANPRM and have been further refined based on public comments,
consultation with other Federal Government agencies, and the
recommendations from the PARS. Approximate fairway widths and
reciprocal courses are provided. A chart of the proposed fairways is
available for review in the docket.
The proposed Long Island Fairway would be approximately 105 NM
long, in an approximate direction of 066 degrees true ([deg]T)/246
[deg]T and varies in width from approximately 3 NM on the approaches to
New York to 8 NM at its widest point. This proposed size would include
the customary routes taken by vessels between the New York-New Jersey
Harbor and the approaches to Narragansett Bay. This proposed fairway
would be in an area enclosed by the following rhumb lines joining
points (World Geodetic System 1984 (WGS 84) datum):
Table 1--The Proposed Long Island Fairway
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Latitude Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
40[deg]29'15'' N 73[deg]32'03'' W
40[deg]31'02'' N 73[deg]35'17'' W
40[deg]30'15'' N 73[deg]41'25'' W
40[deg]31'33'' N 73[deg]42'23'' W
40[deg]35'59'' N 73[deg]11'39'' W
41[deg]06'31'' N 71[deg]30'24'' W
41[deg]02'51'' N 71[deg]29'06'' W
40[deg]48'05'' N 71[deg]59'27'' W
40[deg]32'38'' N 72[deg]50'50'' W
40[deg]32'12'' N 73[deg]11'28'' W
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed Nantucket to Ambrose Fairway would be approximately
150 NM long in an approximate direction of 090 [deg]T/270 [deg]T, 15 NM
wide, and would encapsulate the current Nantucket to Ambrose and
Ambrose to Nantucket fairways into one single fairway. It would cross
the Barnegat to Narragansett Fairway. This proposed fairway would be in
an area enclosed by the following rhumb lines joining points (WGS 84
datum):
Table 2--The Proposed Nantucket to Ambrose Fairway
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Latitude Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
40[deg]32'20'' N 73[deg]04'55'' W
40[deg]30'59'' N 72[deg]57'39'' W
40[deg]34'07'' N 70[deg]19'26'' W
40[deg]35'41'' N 70[deg]14'02'' W
40[deg]22'38'' N 70[deg]13'34'' W
40[deg]24'07'' N 70[deg]19'03'' W
40[deg]20'57'' N 72[deg]58'22'' W
40[deg]19'20'' N 73[deg]04'56'' W
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed Hudson Canyone to Ambrose Eastern Fairway would be
approximately 35 NM long in an approximate direction of 090 [deg]T/270
[deg]T, 5 NM wide, and would extend approximately 30 NM past BOEM lease
OCS-A 0537. This proposed fairway would support offshore vessel
transits from Europe to New York-New Jersey Harbor via the Off New
York: Southeastern approach (33 CFR 167.154). This proposed fairway
would
[[Page 3597]]
be in an area enclosed by the following rhumb lines joining points (WGS
84 datum):
Table 3--The Proposed Hudson Canyon to Ambrose Eastern Fairway
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Latitude Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
40[deg]08'25'' N 72[deg]38'18'' W
40[deg]08'25'' N 72[deg]27'34'' W
40[deg]08'25'' N 72[deg]00'00'' W
40[deg]03'25'' N 72[deg]00'00'' W
40[deg]03'25'' N 72[deg]27'34'' W
40[deg]03'25'' N 72[deg]53'15'' W
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed Hudson Canyon to Ambrose Southeastern approach Fairway
would be 177 NM long in an approximate direction of 315 [deg]T/135
[deg]T, 15 NM wide, and would extend from the proposed precautionary
area at the offshore terminus of the Off New York: Southeastern
approach to the offshore boundary of the U.S. EEZ. Because BOEM's
leasing authority for the OCS extends to the outer boundary of the U.S.
EEZ, the proposed Hudson Canyon to Ambrose Southeastern approach
Fairway would designate the customary offshore route to New York-New
Jersey Harbor via the Off New York: Southeastern approach. This
proposed fairway would be in an area enclosed by the following rhumb
lines joining points (WGS 84 datum):
Table 4--The Proposed Hudson Canyon to Ambrose Southeastern Approach
Fairway
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Latitude Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
40[deg]01'32'' N 72[deg]58'53'' W
40[deg]00'20'' N 72[deg]56'59'' W
39[deg]42'19'' N 72[deg]34'32'' W
39[deg]24'19'' N 72[deg]12'12'' W
39[deg]06'19'' N 71[deg]49'57'' W
38[deg]48'19'' N 71[deg]27'49'' W
38[deg]30'19'' N 71[deg]05'45'' W
38[deg]12'19'' N 70[deg]43'48'' W
37[deg]54'40'' N 70[deg]22'22'' W
37[deg]45'55'' N 70[deg]38'53'' W
38[deg]01'33'' N 70[deg]57'56'' W
38[deg]19'33'' N 71[deg]19'57'' W
38[deg]37'33'' N 71[deg]42'04'' W
38[deg]55'33'' N 72[deg]04'17'' W
39[deg]13'33'' N 72[deg]26'35'' W
39[deg]31'33'' N 72[deg]48'59'' W
39[deg]49'33'' N 73[deg]11'28'' W
39[deg]55'14'' N 73[deg]17'43'' W
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed Barnegat to Narragansett Fairway would be
approximately 135 NM long in an approximate direction of 063 [deg]T/243
[deg]T, between 9 and 35 NM wide, and include the customary route taken
by vessels across the New York Bight. The proposed fairway would have a
7-degree turn (063 [deg]T/243 [deg]T to 056 [deg]T/236 [deg]T) that is
located between the Off New York: Eastern approach (33 CFR 167.153) and
the Off New York: Southeastern approach. The proposed Barnegat to
Narragansett Fairway would widen beyond 9 NM in this area to account
for the additional sea space needed for vessels to maneuver prior to
crossing the Nantucket to Ambrose Fairway. This proposed fairway would
be in an area enclosed by the following rhumb lines joining points (WGS
84 datum):
Table 5--The Proposed Barnegat to Narragansett Fairway
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Latitude Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
39[deg]53'10'' N 73[deg]53'21'' W
39[deg]57'38'' N 73[deg]40'25'' W
40[deg]02'24'' N 73[deg]26'33'' W
40[deg]09'1'' N 73[deg]10'49'' W
40[deg]09'37'' N 73[deg]06'52'' W
40[deg]48'5'' N 71[deg]59'27'' W
41[deg]02'51'' N 71[deg]29'6'' W
41[deg]02'11'' N 71[deg]18'13'' W
40[deg]20'32'' N 72[deg]02'02'' W
40[deg]01'32'' N 72[deg]58'53'' W
39[deg]55'14'' N 73[deg]17'43'' W
39[deg]48'21'' N 73[deg]38'17'' W
39[deg]42'55'' N 73[deg]54'32'' W
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed New Jersey to New York Connector Fairway would be
approximately 105 NM long, 4 NM wide, and include the customary route
taken by vessels along the New Jersey coast between New York-New Jersey
Harbor and the entrance to Delaware Bay. Because of the limited
available sea space, this proposed fairway could not be widened to a
desired 9 NM. The proposed New Jersey to New York Connector Fairway
would be bounded to the west (shoreside) within 3 NM from shore, to
designate the available sea space within the OCS as a fairway to
prohibit future construction or development, and to preserve safe water
for vessel navigation. This proposed fairway would be in an area
enclosed by the following rhumb lines joining points (WGS 84 datum):
Table 6--The Proposed New Jersey to New York Connector Fairway
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Latitude Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
38[deg]48'54'' N 74[deg]47'17'' W
38[deg]48'19'' N 74[deg]55'24'' W
39[deg]29'42'' N 74[deg]12'28'' W
39[deg]47'36'' N 74[deg]00'38'' W
40[deg]22'17'' N 73[deg]55'58'' W
40[deg]20'30'' N 73[deg]49'38'' W
39[deg]52'58'' N 73[deg]53'22'' W
39[deg]42'55'' N 73[deg]54'32'' W
39[deg]41'42'' N 73[deg]58'10'' W
39[deg]35'15'' N 74[deg]02'59'' W
39[deg]27'30'' N 74[deg]08'07'' W
39[deg]06'13'' N 74[deg]30'01'' W
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed St. Lucie to New York Fairway would be approximately
790 NM long in an approximate direction of 030 [deg]T/210 [deg]T until
off Cape Hatteras, NC, then it would turn to the north to approximately
003 [deg]T/183 [deg]T. It would be between 9 and 20 NM wide. It would
include the customary route taken by vessels transiting offshore
between the Port of Miami, FL; Port Everglades, FL; the Port of
Virginia; the Port of Baltimore, MD; the Port of Philadelphia, PA; the
Port of Wilmington, DE; and the Port of New York and New Jersey. The
proposed St. Lucie to New York Fairway would measure 9 NM wide between
Miami, FL and the approaches to Chesapeake Bay, where it would widen to
20 NM to account for the high vessel traffic density on the approaches
to Chesapeake Bay, Delaware Bay, and New York. This proposed fairway
would be an area enclosed by the following rhumb lines joining points
(WGS 84 datum):
Table 7--The Proposed St. Lucie to New York Fairway
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Latitude Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
36[deg]17'51'' N 74[deg]26'02'' W
35[deg]17'41'' N 74[deg]40'46'' W
34[deg]33'21'' N 74[deg]52'32'' W
33[deg]57'08'' N 75[deg]20'14'' W
32[deg]49'16'' N 76[deg]06'42'' W
31[deg]37'49'' N 76[deg]51'25'' W
29[deg]36'06'' N 78[deg]06'19'' W
27[deg]46'56'' N 79[deg]12'18'' W
27[deg]51'00'' N 79[deg]21'20'' W
29[deg]40'20'' N 78[deg]15'25'' W
31[deg]42'04'' N 77[deg]00'43'' W
32[deg]53'37'' N 76[deg]16'03'' W
34[deg]01'48'' N 75[deg]29'30'' W
34[deg]36'50'' N 75[deg]02'46'' W
35[deg]19'31'' N 74[deg]51'32'' W
36[deg]07'03'' N 74[deg]39'60'' W
37[deg]59'00'' N 74[deg]25'56'' W
38[deg]18'34'' N 74[deg]18'21'' W
38[deg]41'08'' N 74[deg]09'36'' W
38[deg]52'59'' N 74[deg]05'01'' W
39[deg]15'49'' N 73[deg]56'09'' W
39[deg]42'55'' N 73[deg]54'32'' W
39[deg]45'42'' N 73[deg]46'12'' W
39[deg]48'21'' N 73[deg]38'17'' W
39[deg]45'42'' N 73[deg]37'40'' W
39[deg]11'38'' N 73[deg]40'30'' W
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed Offshore Delaware Bay to New Jersey Connector Fairway
would be approximately 43 NM long in an approximate direction of 355
[deg]T/175 [deg]T,
[[Page 3598]]
4 NM wide, and would include a customary route taken by vessels between
New York-New Jersey Harbor and Chesapeake Bay. The proposed Offshore
Delaware Bay to New Jersey Connector Fairway provides vessels an
offshore route connecting the proposed Chesapeake Bay to Delaware Bay
Eastern Approach Cutoff Fairway to the proposed New Jersey to New York
Connector Fairway around the U.S. Wind, Skipjack, and Garden State
Offshore Energy project lease areas. This proposed fairway would be in
an area enclosed by the following rhumb lines joining points (WGS 84
datum):
Table 8--The Proposed Offshore Delaware Bay to New Jersey Connector
Fairway
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Latitude Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
38[deg]19'43'' N 74[deg]30'38'' W
38[deg]44'27'' N 74[deg]33'19'' W
38[deg]49'48'' N 74[deg]33'54'' W
39[deg]01'14'' N 74[deg]35'09'' W
39[deg]06'13'' N 74[deg]30'01'' W
39[deg]01'41'' N 74[deg]30'03'' W
38[deg]49'47'' N 74[deg]28'44'' W
38[deg]44'26'' N 74[deg]28'09'' W
38[deg]21'04'' N 74[deg]25'35'' W
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed Delaware Bay Fairway Anchorage would be a 51-square
mile area adjacent and contiguous to the western boundary of the
Offshore Delaware Bay to New Jersey Connector Fairway. Deep draft
vessels already use this area between the Southeastern approach
proposed extension and the Offshore Delaware Bay to New Jersey
Connector Fairway as an informal anchorage for anchoring and bunkering.
Therefore, the proposed Delaware Bay Fairway Anchorage would meet
current and future needs for safe anchorage in the region as offshore
development continues. This proposed fairway anchorage would be in an
area enclosed by the following rhumb lines joining points (WGS 84
datum):
Table 9--The Proposed Delaware Bay Fairway Anchorage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Latitude Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
38[deg]31'23'' N 74[deg]35'39'' W
38[deg]32'23'' N 74[deg]32'01'' W
38[deg]19'43'' N 74[deg]30'38'' W
38[deg]28'48'' N 74[deg]39'18'' W
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed Cape Charles to Delaware Bay Fairway would be
approximately 105 NM long in an approximate direction along the
Delmarva Peninsula, mainly 9 NM wide, and would include customary
routes for vessels between the approaches to Chesapeake Bay and
Delaware Bay. The width of the proposed Cape Charles to Delaware Bay
Fairway would gradually decrease to 4 NM over the final 40-NM stretch
to the precautionary area at the entrance to Delaware Bay. This
proposed fairway would be in an area enclosed by the following rhumb
lines joining points (WGS 84 datum):
Table 10--The Proposed Cape Charles to Delaware Bay Fairway
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Latitude Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
38[deg]31'31'' N 74[deg]55'28'' W
37[deg]53'08'' N 74[deg]56'45'' W
36[deg]59'41'' N 75[deg]36'05'' W
37[deg]01'39'' N 75[deg]47'38'' W
38[deg]01'17'' N 75[deg]04'15'' W
38[deg]42'50'' N 74[deg]58'56'' W
38[deg]37'15'' N 74[deg]54'09'' W
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed Chesapeake Bay to Delaware Bay: Eastern approach
Cutoff Fairway would be approximately 70 NM long in an approximate
direction of 043 [deg]T/223 [deg]T, is 9 NM wide, and would include a
customary route taken by vessels between the approaches to Chesapeake
Bay and the approaches to Delaware Bay. This proposed fairway would be
an area enclosed by the following rhumb lines joining points (WGS 84
datum):
Table 11--The Proposed Chesapeake Bay to Delaware Bay: Eastern Approach
Cutoff Fairway
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Latitude Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
37[deg]16'48'' N 75[deg]23'35'' W
38[deg]04'32'' N 74[deg]34'56'' W
37[deg]58'60'' N 74[deg]25'56'' W
37[deg]08'44'' N 75[deg]17'17'' W
37[deg]08'43'' N 75[deg]29'30'' W
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed Chesapeake Bay approach Connector-North Fairway would
be approximately 48 NM long in an approximate direction of 090 [deg]T/
270 [deg]T, 9 NM wide, and would include customary routes taken by
vessels from the high seas to the Chesapeake Bay: Southern approach (33
CFR 167.203). The Chesapeake Bay approach Connector--North Fairway
would also preserve the deep-water slough connecting the deep-water
route within the Southern approach--which is recommended for vessels
with drafts greater than 13.5 meters (45 feet) and Naval aircraft
carriers--to the high seas. This proposed fairway would be an area
enclosed by the following rhumb lines joining points (WGS 84 datum):
Table 12--The Proposed Chesapeake Bay Approach Connector--North Fairway
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Latitude Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
37[deg]08'43'' N 075[deg]29'30'' W
37[deg]08'50'' N 74[deg]32'14'' W
36[deg]59'49'' N 74[deg]33'22'' W
36[deg]59'42'' N 075[deg]27'31'' W
36[deg]57'56'' N 075[deg]29'59'' W
36[deg]49'18'' N 075[deg]29'56'' W
36[deg]49'18'' N 075[deg]35'28'' W
36[deg]59'41'' N 075[deg]36'05'' W
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed Chesapeake Bay approach Connector--South Fairway would
be approximately 48 NM long in an approximate direction of 090 [deg]T/
270 [deg]T, 9 NM wide, and would include customary routes for vessels
from the high seas to the Chesapeake Bay: Southern approach. This
proposed fairway would be an area enclosed by the following rhumb lines
joining points (WGS 84 datum):
Table 13--The Proposed Chesapeake Bay Approach Connector--South Fairway
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Latitude Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
36[deg]49'18'' N 75[deg]35'28'' W
36[deg]49'18'' N 74[deg]34'41'' W
36[deg]40'20'' N 74[deg]35'49'' W
36[deg]40'17'' N 75[deg]33'31'' W
36[deg]43'51'' N 75[deg]36'43'' W
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed Hatteras to Chesapeake Bay Offshore Fairway would be
approximately 103 NM long, in an approximate direction of 342 [deg]T/
162 [deg]T, and approximately 6 NM wide. It would include customary
routes for vessels transiting between the Port of Miami, FL; Port
Everglades, FL; Port Canaveral, FL; the Port of Jacksonville, FL; Kings
Bay, GA; the Port of Brunswick, GA; the Port of Savannah, GA;
Charleston, SC; the Port of Morehead City, NC; the Port of Wilmington,
NC; and the Port of Virginia.
The proposed Hatteras to Chesapeake Bay Offshore Fairway was
originally part of the St. Lucie to Chesapeake Offshore Fairway,
discussed in the ANPRM, and remains unaltered. Combining this proposed
fairway with the Hatteras to Chesapeake Bay Offshore Fairway into a
single fairway 9 NM wide was considered, but a consistent single
fairway of that width could not be supported based on USN activity and
OREI development in the area. Thus, this and the nearshore portion of
the St. Lucie to Chesapeake Bay navigation corridor remain as separate
proposals. This proposed fairway would be in an
[[Page 3599]]
area enclosed by the following rhumb lines joining points (WGS 84
datum):
Table 14--The Proposed Hatteras to Chesapeake Bay Offshore Fairway
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Latitude Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
35[deg]06'32'' N 74[deg]58'03'' W
35[deg]07'36'' N 75[deg]06'05'' W
35[deg]59'33'' N 75[deg]06'58'' W
36[deg]09'53'' N 75[deg]16'11'' W
36[deg]21'49'' N 75[deg]26'54'' W
36[deg]34'42'' N 75[deg]38'28'' W
36[deg]41'58'' N 75[deg]41'36'' W
36[deg]43'51'' N 75[deg]36'43'' W
36[deg]25'19'' N 75[deg]20'05'' W
36[deg]13'49'' N 75[deg]09'47'' W
36[deg]01'44'' N 74[deg]59'01'' W
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed Hatteras to Chesapeake Bay Nearshore Fairway would be
approximately 97 NM long, in an approximate direction of 342 [deg]T/162
[deg]T, and approximately 7 NM wide. It would include customary routes
for vessels transiting between the Port of Miami, FL; Port Everglades,
FL; Port Canaveral, FL; the Port of Jacksonville, FL; Kings Bay, GA;
the Port of Brunswick, GA; the Port of Savannah, GA; Charleston, SC;
the Port of Morehead City, NC; the Port of Wilmington, NC; and the Port
of Virginia.
The proposed Hatteras to Chesapeake Bay Nearshore Fairway was
originally part of the St. Lucie to Chesapeake Offshore Fairway, which
was discussed in the ANPRM. Combining this proposed fairway with the
Hatteras to Chesapeake Bay Offshore Fairway into a single fairway 9 NM
wide was considered, but a consistent single fairway of that width
could not be supported based on USN activity and OREI development in
the area. Thus, this and the offshore portion of the St. Lucie to
Chesapeake Bay navigation corridor remain as separate proposals. The
proposed width of this fairway, however, has been increased from
approximately 5 NM to approximately 7 NM to better support the
maneuverability of vessels and to make better use of available sea
space. This proposed fairway would be in an area enclosed by the
following rhumb lines joining points (WGS 84 datum):
Table 15--The Proposed Hatteras to Chesapeake Bay Nearshore Fairway
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Latitude Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
35[deg]09'05'' N 75[deg]17'23'' W
35[deg]35'43'' N 75[deg]19'23'' W
36[deg]35'18'' N 75[deg]43'45'' W
36[deg]44'43'' N 75[deg]47'08'' W
36[deg]41'58'' N 75[deg]41'36'' W
36[deg]34'42'' N 75[deg]38'28'' W
36[deg]26'19'' N 75[deg]30'57'' W
35[deg]37'03'' N 75[deg]10'53'' W
35[deg]07'57'' N 75[deg]08'45'' W
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed St. Lucie to Hatteras Fairway would be approximately
600 NM long, would follow the direction of the coastline from St.
Lucie, FL to Cape Hatteras, NC, and would be 13 NM wide. This fairway
would include customary routes for vessels transiting between the Port
of Miami, FL; Port Everglades, FL; Port Canaveral, FL; the Port of
Jacksonville, FL; Kings Bay, GA; the Port of Brunswick, GA; the Port of
Savannah, GA; Charleston, SC; the Port of Morehead City, NC; the Port
of Wilmington, NC; and the Port of Virginia.
The proposed St. Lucie to Hatteras Fairway would combine the
portions of the St. Lucie to Chesapeake Offshore and Nearshore
Fairways, which was discussed in the ANPRM, from St. Lucie, FL to Cape
Hatteras, NC. The fairway would maintain the split around the charted
fixed structure near Ft. Pierce Inlet, FL as presented in the ANPRM.
Because fairways are not designated for specific user groups, and since
the two fairways proposed in the ANPRM share a common border, the Coast
Guard is seeking to streamline regulations by proposing to combine the
two fairways into a single fairway from St. Lucie, FL to Cape Hatteras,
NC. This proposed fairway would be in an area enclosed by the following
rhumb lines joining points (WGS 84 datum):
Table 16--The Proposed St. Lucie to Hatteras Fairway
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Latitude Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
35[deg]06'32'' N 74[deg]58'03'' W
34[deg]08'12'' N 76[deg]13'25'' W
33[deg]17'01'' N 77[deg]24'37'' W
31[deg]45'60'' N 79[deg]54'60'' W
31[deg]24'48'' N 80[deg]15'25'' W
31[deg]15'38'' N 80[deg]21'14'' W
30[deg]55'07'' N 80[deg]29'47'' W
28[deg]40'16'' N 80[deg]06'15'' W
27[deg]13'02'' N 79[deg]48'27'' W
27[deg]11'28'' N 79[deg]58'17'' W
27[deg]45'00'' N 80[deg]05'18'' W
27[deg]23'53'' N 80[deg]02'26'' W
27[deg]11'28'' N 79[deg]58'17'' W
27[deg]10'12'' N 80[deg]03'04'' W
27[deg]22'58'' N 80[deg]07'20'' W
27[deg]44'21'' N 80[deg]10'14'' W
28[deg]38'07'' N 80[deg]21'01'' W
30[deg]56'24'' N 80[deg]45'09'' W
31[deg]22'43'' N 80[deg]34'10'' W
31[deg]31'32'' N 80[deg]29'18'' W
31[deg]56'27'' N 80[deg]05'11'' W
33[deg]27'43'' N 77[deg]34'12'' W
34[deg]18'07'' N 76[deg]23'59'' W
35[deg]09'05'' N 75[deg]17'23'' W
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed Beaufort Inlet Connector Fairway would be
approximately 23 NM long, in an approximate direction of 320 [deg]T/140
[deg]T, and between 5 and 10 NM wide. It would include customary routes
for vessels in the approaches to Beaufort Inlet. The proposed Beaufort
Inlet Connector Fairway would have a width of 5 NM at its nearshore
most point and fan outwards to a maximum width of 10 NM where it would
meet the St. Lucie to Hatteras Fairway, to support vessel transits to
or from the north or south. This proposed fairway would be in an area
enclosed by the following rhumb lines joining points (WGS 84 datum):
Table 17--The Proposed Beaufort Inlet Connector Fairway
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Latitude Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
34[deg]10'17'' N 76[deg]34'54'' W
34[deg]34'09'' N 76[deg]43'24'' W
34[deg]35'52'' N 76[deg]37'42'' W
34[deg]17'00'' N 76[deg]25'32'' W
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed Cape Fear River Southeastern approach Connector
Fairway would be approximately 17 NM long, in a direction of
approximately 300 [deg]T/120 [deg]T/, between 5 and 10 NM wide, and
would include customary routes taken by vessels in the approaches to
the Cape Fear River. The proposed Cape Fear River Southeastern approach
Connector Fairway would have a width of 5 NM at its nearshore most
point and would fan outwards to a maximum width of 10 NM, where it
would meet the St. Lucie to Hatteras Fairway to support vessel transits
to or from the north or south. This proposed fairway is an area
enclosed by the following rhumb lines joining points (WGS 84 datum):
Table 18--The Proposed Cape Fear River Southeastern Approach Connector
Fairway
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Latitude Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
33[deg]28'07'' N 78[deg]08'24'' W
33[deg]13'45'' N 77[deg]57'18'' W
33[deg]06'41'' N 78[deg]08'60'' W
33[deg]27'44'' N 78[deg]15'14'' W
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 3600]]
The proposed Cape Fear River Southwestern approach Connector
Fairway would be approximately 85 NM long, in a direction of
approximately 039 [deg]T/219 [deg]T and 5 NM wide, and would include
customary routes taken by vessels from Savanah, GA and Charleston, SC
to the Cape Fear River. It would extend from the proposed precautionary
area in the approaches to the Cape Fear River past the Cape Romain, SC
Call Area. This proposed fairway would be in an area enclosed by rhumb
lines connecting the following points (WGS 84 datum):
Table 19--The Proposed Cape Fear River Southwestern Approach Connector
Fairway
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Latitude Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
32[deg]55'31'' N 78[deg]45'26'' W
32[deg]30'42'' N 79[deg]29'19'' W
32[deg]34'40'' N 79[deg]32'37'' W
32[deg]59'13'' N 78[deg]49'35'' W
33[deg]34'29'' N 78[deg]18'02'' W
33[deg]28'20'' N 78[deg]16'04'' W
------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Proposed Traffic Separation Schemes and Precautionary Areas
The Coast Guard is proposing two TSS extensions, one precautionary
area expansion, and six new precautionary areas with associated traffic
lanes, discussed below roughly in order of north to south. The Coast
Guard based these routing measures on the fairways under consideration
in the ANPRM, public comments, consultation with other government
agencies, and the recommendations from the four PARS.
The Coast Guard is proposing a new precautionary area at the
offshore terminus of the Off New York: Southeastern approach. This
proposed precautionary area would be an approximately 197-square mile
area encompassing the intersection of the Off New York: Southeastern
approach, the proposed Barnegat to Narragansett Fairway, and the Hudson
Canyon to Ambrose Southeastern Fairway. As discussed in section IV.D.,
Results of PARS, the Coast Guard expects to see a considerable amount
of vessel traffic cross perpendicular to each other at the intersection
of the fairways and TSS. A precautionary area would signify to mariners
that they are transiting through an area, ``where ships must navigate
with particular caution,'' because of the perpendicular crossing of
vessel traffic. The proposed precautionary area would be in an area
enclosed by rhumb lines connecting the following points (Datum: WGS
84):
Table 20--Proposed Precautionary Area Off New York: Southeastern
Approach
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Latitude Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
39[deg]42.92' N 73[deg]54.53' W
39[deg]53.17' N 73[deg]53.35' W
39[deg]57.63' N 73[deg]40.41' W
39[deg]48.35' N 73[deg]38.28' W
39[deg]42.92' N 73[deg]54.53' W
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Coast Guard is proposing a new precautionary area at the
offshore terminus of the Off New York: Southern approach. This proposed
precautionary area would be an approximately 146-square mile area
encompassing the intersection of the Off New York: Southern approach,
the proposed Barnegat to Narragansett Fairway, and the St. Lucie to New
York Fairway. As discussed in section IV.D., Results of PARS, the Coast
Guard expects to see a considerable amount of vessel traffic cross
perpendicular to each other at the intersection of the fairways and
TSS. A precautionary area would signify to mariners that they are
transiting through an area, ``where ships must navigate with particular
caution,'' because of the perpendicular crossing of vessel traffic. The
proposed precautionary area would be in an area enclosed by rhumb lines
connecting the following points (Datum: WGS 84):
Table 21--Proposed Precautionary Area Off New York: Southern Approach
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Latitude Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
40[deg]01.53' N 72[deg]58.88' W
39[deg]55.23' N 73[deg]17.71' W
40[deg]02.41' N 73[deg]26.55' W
40[deg]09.02' N 73[deg]10.82' W
40[deg]01.53' N 72[deg]58.88' W
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to these precautionary areas Off New York's Southern
and Southeastern approaches, the Coast Guard is proposing two more
precautionary areas where the fairway and TSS overlap: Barnegat to
Ambrose Precautionary Area and Hudson Canyon to Ambrose Precautionary
Area. The proposed precautionary areas would be in an area enclosed by
rhumb lines connecting the following points (Datum: WGS 84):
Table 22--Proposed Barnegat to Ambrose Precautionary Area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Latitude Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
39[deg]53'10'' N 73[deg]53'21'' W
39[deg]57'38'' N 73[deg]40'25'' W
39[deg]48'21'' N 73[deg]38'17'' W
39[deg]42'55'' N 73[deg]54'32'' W
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 23--Proposed Hudson Canyon to Ambrose Precautionary Area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Latitude Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
40[deg]02'24'' N 73[deg]26'33'' W
40[deg]09'01'' N 73[deg]10'49'' W
40[deg]01'32'' N 72[deg]58'53'' W
39[deg]55'14'' N 73[deg]17'43'' W
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Coast Guard is proposing a new precautionary area at the
offshore terminus of the Off Delaware Bay: Eastern approach. This
proposed precautionary area would be an approximately 29-square mile
area, encompassing the intersection of the Off Delaware Bay: Eastern
approach and the proposed Off Delaware Bay to New Jersey Connector
Fairway. The Coast Guard expects to see vessel traffic cross
perpendicularly to each other at the intersection of the fairway and
TSS. A precautionary area would signify to mariners that they are
transiting through an area, ``where ships must navigate with particular
caution,'' because of the perpendicular crossing of vessel traffic. The
proposed precautionary area would be in an area enclosed by rhumb lines
connecting the following points (Datum: WGS 84):
Table 24--Proposed Precautionary Area A Off Delaware Bay: Eastern
Approach
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Latitude Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
38[deg]49.80' N 74[deg]33.91' W
38[deg]49.79' N 74[deg]28.74' W
38[deg]44.44' N 74[deg]28.15' W
38[deg]44.45' N 74[deg]33.32' W
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed extension of the Off Delaware Bay: Eastern approach
would extend the TSS separation zone and traffic lanes approximately 16
NM offshore past the proposed precautionary area, where it would
intersect with the St. Lucie to New York Fairway. The Coast Guard
expects to see vessel traffic converge at the intersection of the TSS
extension and the St. Lucie to New York Fairway, and therefore proposes
a precautionary area at the intersection. A precautionary area would
indicate to mariners that they are transiting through an area ``where
ships must navigate with particular caution,''
[[Page 3601]]
because of the perpendicular crossing of vessel traffic. The proposed
precautionary area would be in an area radius 5 NM centered upon
geographical position 38[deg]46.79' N, 74[deg]06.60' W, the areas
within the separation zones, traffic lanes, and fairways excluded.
(Datum: WGS 84).
Because the proposed precautionary area A would bisect the proposed
Eastern approach, we present the proposed separation zone and traffic
lanes in two parts.
With the extension, the new separation zone for Off Delaware Bay:
Eastern approach would be two areas enclosed by rhumb lines connecting
the positions provided in tables 25 and 26 (Datum: WGS 84).
Table 25--Proposed Separation Zone for the Off Delaware Bay: Eastern
Approach--Part 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Latitude Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
38[deg]47.35' N 74[deg]34.5' W
38[deg]47.35' N 74[deg]33.64' W
38[deg]46.3' N 74[deg]33.53' W
38[deg]46.3' N 74[deg]34.45' W
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 26--Proposed Separation Zone for the Off Delaware Bay: Eastern
Approach--Part 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Latitude Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
38[deg]47.34' N 74[deg]28.47' W
38[deg]47.29' N 74[deg]12.98' W
38[deg]46.25' N 74[deg]12.98' W
38[deg]46.29' N 74[deg]28.35' W
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed traffic lane for westbound traffic for the Off
Delaware Bay: Eastern approach would be in an area enclosed by rhumb
lines between the proposed separation zone parts and two corresponding
lines connecting the positions provided in tables 27 and 28 (WGS 84):
Table 27--Proposed Traffic Lane for Westbound Traffic for the Off
Delaware Bay: Eastern Approach--Part 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Latitude Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
38[deg]49.80' N 74[deg]34.60' W
38[deg]49.80' N 74[deg]33.91' W
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 28--Proposed Traffic Lane for Westbound Traffic for the Off
Delaware Bay: Eastern Approach--Part 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Latitude Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
38[deg]49.79' N 74[deg]28.74' W
38[deg]49.77' N 74[deg]12.26' W
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed eastbound traffic lane for the Off Delaware Bay:
Eastern approach would be in an area enclosed by rhumb lines, between
the proposed separation zone parts and two corresponding lines
connecting the positions in tables 29 and 30 (WGS 84):
Table 29--Proposed Traffic Lane for Eastbound Traffic for the Off
Delaware Bay: Eastern Approach--Part 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Latitude Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
38[deg]44.45' N 74[deg]34.35' W
38[deg]44.45' N 74[deg]33.32' W
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 30--Proposed Traffic Lane for Eastbound Traffic for the Off
Delaware Bay: Eastern Approach--Part 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Latitude Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
38[deg]44.44' N 74[deg]28.15' W
38[deg]44.43' N 74[deg]12.55' W
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed extension of the Off Delaware Bay: Southeastern
approach would extend the TSS separation zone and traffic lanes
approximately 12 NM farther offshore and would maintain the width of
approximately 5 NM. With the extension, the new Off Delaware Bay:
Southeastern approach traffic lanes and separation zones would be
enclosed by rhumb lines connecting the following points (Datum: WGS
84):
Table 31--Proposed Separation Zone for the Off Delaware Bay:
Southeastern Approach
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Latitude Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
38[deg]27.00' N 74[deg]42.30' W
38[deg]27.60' N 74[deg]41.30' W
38[deg]18.41' N 74[deg]32.53' W
38[deg]17.63' N 74[deg]33.35' W
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed northwest-bound traffic lane for the Off Delaware Bay:
Eastern approach would be in an area enclosed by rhumb lines, between
the proposed separation zone and a line connecting the following
positions (WGS 84):
Table 32--Proposed Traffic Lane Positions for Northwest-Bound Traffic
for the Off Delaware Bay: Southeastern Approach
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Latitude Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
38[deg]28.80' N 74[deg]39.30' W
38[deg]19.72' N 74[deg]30.63' W
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed southeast-bound traffic lane for the Off Delaware Bay:
Eastern approach would be in an area enclosed by rhumb lines, between
the proposed separation zone and a line connecting the following
positions (WGS 84):
Table 33--Proposed Traffic Lane Positions for Southeast-Bound Traffic
for the Off Delaware Bay: Eastern Approach
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Latitude Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
38[deg]15.80' N 74[deg]34.75' W
38[deg]25.78' N 74[deg]44.28' W
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Coast Guard is proposing a new precautionary area at the
offshore terminus of the Off Delaware Bay: Southeastern approach. This
proposed precautionary area would be an approximately 314-square mile
area encompassing the intersection of the Off Delaware Bay:
Southeastern approach, the proposed Chesapeake Bay to Delaware Bay
Eastern approach Cutoff Fairway, the proposed Off Delaware Bay to New
Jersey Connector Fairway, and the proposed St. Lucie to New York
Fairway. The Coast Guard expects to see a considerable amount of vessel
traffic meet at the intersection of the fairways and TSS. A
precautionary area would signify to mariners that they are transiting
through an area, ``where ships must navigate with particular caution,''
due to the perpendicular crossing of vessel traffic. The proposed
precautionary area would be in an area radius 10 NM centered upon
geographical position 38[deg]10.02' N, 74[deg]25.34' W, the areas
within the separation zones, traffic lanes, and fairways excluded.
(Datum: WGS 84)
The Coast Guard is proposing an expansion of the precautionary area
at the entrance to the Delaware Bay. This proposed expansion would
extend the precautionary area approximately 4.5 NM offshore and would
gradually widen to 11 NM, where it would encompass the intersection of
the proposed Cape Charles to Delaware Bay Fairway, the proposed New
Jersey to New York Connector Fairway, and both the Off Delaware Bay:
Eastern and Southeastern approaches. A precautionary area would signify
to
[[Page 3602]]
mariners that they are transiting through an area, ``where ships must
navigate with particular caution,'' due to the perpendicular crossing
of vessel traffic. The proposed precautionary area extension would be
in an area enclosed by the following points (Datum: WGS 84):
From 38[deg]42.80' N, 74[deg]58.90' W; then southeasterly to
38[deg]37.25' N, 74[deg]54.15' W; then northeasterly to 38[deg]48.89'
N, 74[deg]47.29' W; then westerly to 38[deg]48.31' N, 74[deg]55.39' W;
then westerly to 38[deg]47.50' N, 75[deg]01.80' W; then northerly to
38[deg]50.75' N, 75[deg]03.40' W; then northeasterly to 38[deg]51.27'
N, 75[deg]02.83' W; then northerly to 38[deg]54.80' N, 75[deg]01.60' W;
then westerly by an arc of 6.7 nautical miles centered at 38[deg]48.90'
N, 75[deg]05.60' W to 38[deg]55.53' N, 75[deg]05.87' W; then
southwesterly to 38[deg]54.00' N, 75[deg]08.00' W; then southerly to
38[deg]46.60' N, 75[deg]03.55' W; then southeasterly to 38[deg]42.80'
N, 74[deg]58.90' W.
The Coast Guard is proposing a new precautionary area connecting
the termini of the Eastern and Southern approach to the TSS in the
approaches to Chesapeake Bay. This proposed precautionary area would be
approximately 22 NM long, bounded by arcs of 5 NM, and 5 NM wide. It
would also encompass the intersections of the proposed Hatteras to
Chesapeake Bay Nearshore Fairway, the proposed Hatteras to Chesapeake
Bay Offshore Fairway, the Chesapeake Bay Connector--South Fairway, the
Chesapeake Bay Connector--North Fairway, the Cape Charles to Delaware
Bay Fairway, and both the Eastern and Southern approaches in the
approaches to Chesapeake Bay TSS. A precautionary area is charted
between the Eastern and Southern approaches to Chesapeake Bay, but it
was never adopted by IMO, nor codified in 33 CFR part 167. This
existing precautionary area is included within the proposed
precautionary area. A precautionary area would signify to mariners that
they are transiting through an area, ``where ships must navigate with
particular caution,'' due to the perpendicular crossing of vessel
traffic. The proposed precautionary area would be in an area enclosed
by the following points (Datum: WGS 84):
From 36[deg]58.25' N, 75[deg]48.44' W; then easterly by an arc of 5
NM centered at 36[deg]59.06' N, 75[deg]42.28' W to 36[deg]59.27' N,
75[deg]36.04' W; then southerly to 36[deg]47.20' N, 75[deg]35.35' W;
then westerly by an arc of 5 NM centered around 36[deg]46.98' N,
075[deg]41.58' W to 36[deg]48.21' N, 075[deg]47.61' W; then northerly
to 36[deg]48.87' N, 075[deg]47.42' W; then northeasterly to
36[deg]50.33' N, 075[deg]46.29' W; then northerly to 36[deg]57.04' N,
075[deg]48.01' W; then northwesterly to 36[deg]57.94' N, 075[deg]48.41'
W; then northerly to 36[deg]58.25' N, 75[deg]48.44' W.
The Coast Guard is proposing a new precautionary area at the
offshore terminus of the TSS for the approaches to the Cape Fear River.
This proposed precautionary area would be an approximately 75-square
mile area encompassing the intersection of the Cape Fear River TSS, the
proposed Cape Fear Southeastern approach Connector Fairway, and the
proposed Cape Fear Southwestern approach Connector Fairway. A
precautionary area would signify to mariners that they are transiting
through an area, ``where ships must navigate with particular caution,''
due to the perpendicular crossing of vessel traffic. The proposed
precautionary area would be in an area enclosed by the following points
(Datum: WGS 84):
From 33[deg]36.22' N, 078[deg]17.30' W; then easterly by an arc of
5.2 NM centered at 33[deg]32.99' N, 078[deg]12.10' W; to 33[deg]32.75'
N, 078[deg]05.99' W; then westerly to 33[deg]32.75' N, 078[deg]09.66'
W; then northwesterly to 33[deg]34.50' N, 078[deg]14.70' W; then
northwesterly to 33[deg]36.22' N, 078[deg]17.30' W.
VII. Regulatory Analyses
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive orders related to rulemaking. A summary of our analyses based
on these statutes and Executive orders follows.
A. Regulatory Planning and Review
Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), as amended
by Executive Order 14094 (Modernizing Regulatory Review), and 13563
(Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) direct agencies to assess
the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public
health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive
Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying costs and
benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility.
This proposed rule is a significant regulatory action under section
3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 14094, and
has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). A
combined regulatory analysis and regulatory flexibility analysis
follows.
The Coast Guard is proposing to codify shipping safety fairways
along historic and well-established vessel traffic patterns and routes.
These fairways would provide advance information to the offshore wind
energy sector and help ensure that vessels traversing waters subject to
U.S. jurisdiction would have unimpeded voyages, free from fixed and
affixed structures. Establishing the fairways would not impose any
costs on the offshore wind energy sector or to vessels, as there are no
costs for streamlining the preexisting requirements for offshore wind
energy consultations and for vessels to continue to travel along their
historic routes.
Throughout BOEM's competitive lease process, as defined in 30 CFR
part 585, BOEM engages with its task forces and directly with other
Federal agencies, including the Coast Guard, whom BOEM relies on to
assist with identifying potential maritime conflicts. This engagement
is iterative throughout the development of commercial leases from the
RFI to the competitive lease sale because the interest and needs of
both OREI and the maritime industry, as well as States and the Federal
agencies, are dynamic and evolving over time. Codifying traditional
shipping lanes into fairways, TSSs, and precautionary areas has the
effect of providing relevant stakeholders with necessary information
earlier in the competitive lease process. Additionally, these fairways
would help ensure that vessels have clear and unimpeded transit routes
to and from U.S. ports, preserving safe and reliable transit paths.
Background
To address climate change while also meeting growing energy
demands, President Biden issued Executive Order 14008 (Tackling the
Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad). Executive Order 14008 is designed
to signal a significant increase in ambition to meet the climate
crisis. In particular, section 207 of the Order directs the
Administration to identify steps needed to increase renewable energy
production, specifically offshore wind energy production, with defined
goals on measured timelines. The Biden Administration then announced a
shared goal between the Departments of Interior, Energy, and Commerce
to deploy 30 gigawatts (GW) of offshore wind energy by 2030, while
protecting biodiversity and ocean co-use.\20\ The
[[Page 3603]]
Administration also identified that achieving this 2030 goal would
unlock a pathway to 110 GW of offshore wind energy generation by
2050.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ The White House, ``FACT SHEET: Biden Administration
Jumpstarts Offshore Wind Energy Projects to Create Jobs,'' 03/29/
2021. Available at: <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/03/29/fact-sheet-biden-administration-jumpstarts-offshore-wind-energy-projects-to-create-jobs/">https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/03/29/fact-sheet-biden-administration-jumpstarts-offshore-wind-energy-projects-to-create-jobs/</a>. Accessed
June 08, 2023.
\21\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Coast Guard recognizes the increase in offshore commercial
activity and will work with other Federal agencies to facilitate this
continued growth. The Coast Guard believes that establishing consistent
and clearly defined fairways, TSSs, and precautionary areas will
facilitate this development while preserving continued ready access to
port facilities.
Protecting access to Atlantic ports is also critical to the U.S.
and global economies. Any obstructions or delays in shipping could
result in added costs that may trickle down to consumers and disrupt
supply chains across all industries. For the purpose of this
discussion, table 34 \22\ lists the average value of goods flowing
through various Atlantic ports each day. For example, the Port of
Virginia handles $106.7 billion worth of goods per year, or an
estimated $296.3 million per day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Data for table 34 in 2022 dollars from USA Trade[supreg]
Online, <a href="https://usatrade.census.gov/">https://usatrade.census.gov/</a> Monetary values. Last accessed
May 24, 2023.
Table 34--Average Value of Goods per Day Flowing Through Atlantic Ports
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daily value of goods Annual value of goods
Port (millions) (billions) *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boston........................................................ $31.7 $11.268
New York-New Jersey........................................... 765.1 271.692
Delaware River................................................ 171.2 60.804
Baltimore..................................................... 206.4 73.296
Virginia...................................................... 296.3 105.228
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Monetary values in 2022 dollars. We calculated daily estimates using 360 working days.
Moving these goods generates port activity and revenue. In turn,
these businesses, as well as their employees, purchase goods and
services, creating a small ecosystem within each port community.
In an effort to help maintain the unimpeded flow of goods and
service in and out of U.S. Ports, this NPRM proposes fairways, TSSs,
and precautionary areas for vessels to use for transit. Under this
proposed rule, vessels would be able to maintain their unimpeded access
to and from all ports of call along the Atlantic Coast. Vessels would
be free to transit and maintain their routes according to their
business operation decisions and to continue with their historic
operational patterns.
Affected Population
Establishing fairways primarily affects offshore wind energy
developers by restricting the space that they may site future WEAs. The
American Clean Power Association (ACP) is a pro-wind lobbying
organization that tracks offshore wind development. As noted in ACP's
May 2023 Offshore Wind Market Report, the United States has 32 active
leases for renewable energy in development on the OCS.\23\ This report
notes that the United States currently has 42 megawatts (MW) of
offshore wind capacity currently operating and is expected to grow to
51.4 GW once all the 32 lease sites come online. Of those 32 offshore
leases, BOEM has awarded 29 on the Atlantic OCS.\24\ These 29 offshore
leases are expected to be able to generate approximately 43 GW of power
once fully operational.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ ACP, ``Offshore Wind Market Report,'' May 2023, <a href="https://cleanpower.org/resources/offshore-wind-market-report-2023/">https://cleanpower.org/resources/offshore-wind-market-report-2023/</a>. Last
accessed May 23, 2023.
\24\ Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Lease and Grant
Information. Available at: <a href="https://www.boem.gov/renewable-energy/lease-and-grant-information">https://www.boem.gov/renewable-energy/lease-and-grant-information</a>. Last accessed May 23, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We examined each of the Atlantic lease sites, reviewing relevant
lease contracts and paperwork to determine location and size, as well
as relevant details about the developer. The results of this review are
presented in table 35. According to the Coast Guard Navigation Center
(NAVCEN), the total size of the Atlantic EEZ from St. Lucie, FL to
Montauk, NY is approximately 194.834 million acres. The 29 lease sites
on the Atlantic EEZ span approximately 2.35 million acres and account
for 1.21 percent of the Atlantic EEZ (2.35 / 194.834 x 100% = 1.21
percent).
The 29 offshore wind energy lease areas are situated within
relative proximity to the proposed fairways. Despite this, there would
be no overlap between them and the offshore wind energy lease areas.
The Coast Guard recognized this proximity and included a 2-NM buffer
zone within each side of the proposed fairway designation area as a
result. This 2-NM buffer zone would allow developers to build up to the
limits of the fairway, so long as no overhang of the structure extends
out of the lease area into the fairway. Given the existence of this
buffer zone, no known or planned energy installation lease areas would
be affected by fairway boundaries or traffic.
Additionally, as discussed in section V. Discussion of ANPRM
Comments earlier, the Coast Guard has worked with BOEM to ensure that
these proposed fairways would not interfere with any existing or
planned lease sites. Table 35 below provides a list of all current
offshore wind energy projects, their proximity to the fairways, and the
distance (in NM) between each project and the closest fairways(s).
Table 35--Current Offshore Wind Energy Projects
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Capacity Size
No. Lease No. Project name State (MW) * Developer (acres) Closest fairway Distance (NM)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1......... OCS-A 0482......... Garden State DE............... 1,249 NRG Energy, Inc... 70,098 Off Delaware Bay ~1 to 2.
Offshore Energy. to New Jersey.
2......... OCS-A 0483......... Coastal Virginia VA............... 2,587 Dominion Energy 112,799 1. Chesapeake Bay ~1.
Offshore Wind. Inc. North.
2. Chesapeake Bay
South.
3......... OCS-A 0486......... Revolution Wind.... MA, RI........... 704 [Oslash]rsted, 83,798 Barnegat to ~10.
Eversource. Narragansett.
4......... OCS-A 0487......... Sunrise Wind....... MA, RI........... 924 [Oslash]rsted, 109,952 Barnegat to ~5.
Eversource. Narragansett.
[[Page 3604]]
5......... OCS-A 0490......... US Wind............ MD............... 1,079 U.S. Wind......... 79,707 Cape Charles to ~3.
Delaware Bay.
6......... OCS-A 0497......... Coastal Virginia VA............... 12 Dominion Energy 2,135 1. Chesapeake Bay ~1
Offshore Wind. Inc. North. ~3.
2. Chesapeake Bay
South.
7......... OCS-A 0498......... Ocean Wind 1....... NJ............... 1,100 [Oslash]rsted..... 75,526 St. Lucie to New ~5 to 10.
York.
8......... OCS-A 0499......... Atlantic Shores NJ............... 1,510 EDF, Shell........ 102,123 1. New Jersey to ~1 to 2.
South. New York.
2. St. Lucie to
New York.
9......... OCS-A 0500......... Bay State Wind..... MA, RI........... 2,579 [Oslash]rsted..... 144,823 Nantucket to ~5 to 9.
Ambrose.
10........ OCS-A 0501......... Vineyard Wind 1.... MA, RI........... 806 Avangrid Inc., CIP 65,296 Not within 10 NM ~10 to 35.
to any.
11........ OCS-A 0506 **...... Block Island Wind RI............... 30 [Oslash]rsted..... 7,708 Right of Way Grant n/a.
Farm. for Cables.
12........ OCS-A 0508......... Kitty Hawk......... NC............... 3,500 Avangrid Inc...... 122,405 Hatteras to ~1.
Chesapeake Bay.
13........ OCS-A 0512......... Empire Wind........ NY............... 2,076 BP, Equinor Asa... 79,350 Nantucket to ~5.
Ambrose.
14........ OCS-A 0517......... South Fork Wind.... MA, RI........... 132 [Oslash]rsted, 13,700 Barnegat to ~10.
Eversource. Narragansett.
15........ OCS-A 0519......... Skipjack........... DE............... 966 [Oslash]rsted..... 26,332 Off Delaware Bay ~2 to 3.
to New Jersey.
16........ OCS-A 0520......... Beacon Wind........ MA, RI........... 1,230 BP, Equinor Asa... 128,811 Nantucket to ~6.
Ambrose.
17........ OCS-A 0521......... Mayflower Wind..... MA, RI........... 1,204 EDP Renewables, 127,388 Nantucket to ~5.
Engie, Shell. Ambrose.
18........ OCS-A 0522......... Vineyard Northeast. MA, RI........... 2,358 Avangrid Inc., CIP 132,370 Nantucket to ~4.
Ambrose.
19........ OCS-A 0532......... Ocean Wind 2....... NJ............... 1,148 [Oslash]rsted..... 84,955 1. New Jersey to ~1.
New York.
2. Off Delaware
Bay to New Jersey.
20........ OCS-A 0534......... New England Wind... MA, RI........... 2,036 Avangrid Inc...... 101,590 Not within 10 NM ~10 to 30.
to any.
21........ OCS-A 0537......... Bluepoint Wind..... NY............... 1,700 EDP, Engie North 71,522 1. Hudson Canyon ~1.
America. to Ambrose.
2. Hudson Canyon
to Ambrose.
22........ OCS-A 0538......... Attentive Energy... NJ............... 3,000 TotalEnergies..... 84,332 Hudson Canyon to ~1.
Ambrose.
23........ OCS-A 0539......... Hudson South--C.... NJ............... 3,000 RWE, National Grid 125,964 1. Hudson Canyon ~7.
plc. to Ambrose.
2. St. Lucie to
New York.
24........ OCS-A 0541......... Hudson South--E.... NJ............... 1,414 EDF Group, Shell.. 79,351 St. Lucie to New ~1.
York.
25........ OCS-A 0542......... Hudson South--F.... NJ............... 2,000 GE Renewable 83,976 St. Lucie to New ~3.
Energy. York.
26........ OCS-A 0544......... Hudson North....... NY............... 767 CIP............... 43,056 Barnegat to ~1.
Narragansett.
27........ OCS-A 0545......... Wilmington West.... NC............... 1,000 TotalEnergies..... 54,937 Cape Fear ~2.
Southeastern.
28........ OCS-A 0546......... Wilmington East.... NC............... 1,600 Duke Energy Corp.. 55,154 St. Lucie to ~2.
Hatteras.
29........ OCS-A 0549......... Atlantic Shores NJ............... 1,446 EDF Group, Shell.. 81,129 1. New Jersey to ~1 to 2.
North. New York.
2. St. Lucie to
New York.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals............................................................. 43,157 .................. 2,350,287
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Where a proposed capacity has not been stated publicly, ACP estimates potential capacity using a factor of 4.4 MW per square kilometer. We denote
estimates in italics.
** Lease number references right-of-way grant. Block Island Wind Farm is located in Rhode Island State waters.
On November 16, 2022, BOEM announced eight draft WEAs in the
Central Atlantic,\25\ subject to public and Federal agency comments.
Additionally, on April 25, 2023, BOEM issued a Call for information and
nominations for the Gulf of Maine in preparation for possible offshore
WEA development.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ <a href="https://www.boem.gov/renewable-energy/state-activities/central-atlantic">https://www.boem.gov/renewable-energy/state-activities/central-atlantic</a>. Last accessed May 23, 2023.
\26\ <a href="https://www.boem.gov/renewable-energy/state-activities/maine/gulf-maine">https://www.boem.gov/renewable-energy/state-activities/maine/gulf-maine</a>. Last accessed May 23, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed in Section VI.F BOEM's Leasing Process, the BOEM lease
process is an iterative process that takes many steps and can take many
years to complete. These steps include drafting and publishing an RFI
in the Federal Register, developing the Call area, drafting WEAs,
conducting lease auctions, awarding the lease, and conducting an
environmental review before BOEM issues a final Record of Decision,
which will then allow industry to begin developing active sites in the
lease area. We discuss the impact of these steps in more detail in the
Costs section of this analysis.
During BOEM's leasing process, the Coast Guard provides comments
regarding existing high-volume shipping lanes, which have historically
and will continue to prevent other development in these areas. By
codifying the historic shipping lanes into fairways, TSSs, and
precautionary areas, the Coast Guard would provide developers the
necessary information prior to expending resources exploring areas that
cannot be developed without significantly and adversely affecting
existing shipping lanes.
According to NAVCEN, the proposed fairways, TSSs, and precautionary
areas would encompass approximately 24.4 million acres, or 12.5
percent, of the Atlantic EEZ (24.4 / 194.8 x 100% = 12.5 percent).
Existing wind energy lease areas are expected to generate over 43 GW of
offshore wind energy.
Regulatory Analysis
This NPRM proposes to codify PARS recommendations into fairways,
TSSs, and precautionary areas along the Atlantic Coast. This would help
ensure that vessels traversing waters subject to U.S. jurisdiction
would have unimpeded voyages, free from fixed and affixed structures,
as they transit to and from their destinations. This action
[[Page 3605]]
would also align with one of the Coast Guard's central missions of
maintaining and securing safe navigable waters for vessels transiting
waters subject to U.S. jurisdiction.
The Coast Guard is anticipating an increase in offshore activity
and hopes to preserve existing shipping lanes and accommodate OREI
developments, thereby managing future expectations and balancing the
needs of the maritime and energy sectors. If left unabated, future
development areas could create unintended navigation hazards, delays,
or impediments to the safe and efficient transportation and commerce of
maritime vessels carrying goods, materials, and people. Vessels transit
to, from, and between U.S. ports in well-defined routes and in regular
patterns. These typical vessel routes have been developed over many
years as companies look to maximize transportation efficiencies. For
this reason, the Coast Guard proposes codifying existing shipping lanes
into fairways, TSSs, and precautionary areas.
Although this NPRM is proposing to codify fairways, TSSs, and
precautionary areas for vessel use, it would not require vessels to use
them. This proposed rule would maintain the status quo in that vessels
would be free to navigate the waters of the United States to maximize
voyage efficiencies while operating in a safe manner. Since this NPRM
would not impose any requirements that would cause vessels to change
their behavior, the Coast Guard does not anticipate that the proposed
rule would impact the vessel population but is seeking comments on the
possible impacts of this proposed rule.
Costs
Developing offshore wind energy projects on the OCS is a multi-
faceted and iterative process. BOEM is the Federal agency responsible
for issuing leases, easements, and rights-of-way for renewable energy
projects on the OCS. BOEM determines whether to issue leases in
consultation and coordination with other Federal agencies, potentially
affected federally recognized Tribes, States, and local governments. As
specified in 30 CFR 585.210, BOEM initiates the competitive lease
process by publishing in the Federal Register an RFI covering certain
areas of the OCS. BOEM uses the responses to the RFI to determine if
there is a competitive interest for scheduling sales and issuing
leases. If the RFI phase garners sufficient interest, BOEM begins the
process of issuing competitive leases as detailed in 30 CFR 585.211.
BOEM then follows a four-step process to issue competitive leases, with
three of the steps requiring publication in the Federal Register and
subsequent review of responses. Those four steps laid out in 30 CFR
585.211 are as follows:
(1) Publishing a Call for information and nominations;
(2) Identifying the area for a lease;
(3) Publishing a proposed sale notice; and
(4) Publishing a final sale notice.
BOEM typically conducts an environmental review under NEPA at the
proposed sale notice stage and finalizes that review in parallel with
the final sale notice. Furthermore, once BOEM issues a lease,
applicants cannot begin construction until BOEM concludes additional
steps, which include reviewing applicants' Site Assessment Plans and
Construction and Operation Plans (COP), performing a subsequent NEPA
analysis, consulting with additional Federal agencies, and concluding a
final technical review of all activities. BOEM specifically states that
a ``lease does not grant the lessee the right to construct any
facilities; rather, the lease grants the right to develop a plan for
use of the area for BOEM's review and potential approval.'' Once the
environmental reviews under NEPA, consultations under the ESA, and
BOEM's technical reviews are complete, BOEM may approve, disapprove, or
approve with modifications a lessee's COP. If a COP is approved, the
lessee must submit required reports to the Bureau of Safety and
Environmental Enforcement (BSEE). Once the lessee receives a non-
objection from BSEE and all other necessary Federal and State permits,
as well as a consistency determination under the CZMA, the lessee may
begin construction on the OCS.
Given that this consultation process must occur before issuing new
leases, the proposed fairways, TSSs, and precautionary areas do not
cause future potential lease sites to incur any additional costs
because consideration of commercial vessel traffic is already an
existing baseline requirement under current regulations (Sec.
585.102(a)(9)).
The Coast Guard recognizes the competing interests of the maritime
domain as well as the Administration's goal to increase offshore wind
energy production and has taken steps to ensure that the proposed
fairways, TSSs, and precautionary areas do not intersect, limit,
remove, or in any other way interfere with the continued development of
the current lease sites noted in table 35. The proposed fairways, TSSs,
and precautionary areas would codify traditional vessel navigation
routes. This reflects the work done in the PARS, which analyzed vessel
travel patterns and relative densities to make recommendations
regarding preferred vessel travel routes. Additionally, vessels would
be free to transit along other routes outside the proposed fairways,
but we expect vessels would continue to operate as they have
historically. Since this NPRM would not impact existing vessel
behavior, nor would it conflict with any existing lease areas, the
Coast Guard determined that there are no costs associated to existing
leases located in the Atlantic OCS as a result of this proposed rule.
The Coast Guard will continue to work and collaborate with other
agencies to further the Biden Administration's offshore wind energy
goals. Furthermore, the Coast Guard asks the public to submit comments
that address how future offshore energy development may be impacted by
this proposed regulation, and whether any alternative fairway
orientations could reduce those impacts while preserving navigational
safety.
Benefits
The current offshore wind energy development process relies on
input from the public and Federal agencies at various stages and
levels. It is an iterative process that must consider the needs of
various stakeholders and agencies while also navigating renewable
energy demands. Of particular note, 30 CFR 585.102(a)(5) specifies that
BOEM must coordinate with ``relevant Federal agencies (including, in
particular, those agencies involved in planning activities that are
undertaken to avoid conflicts among users and maximize the economic and
ecological benefits of the OCS)[.]'' Under Sec. 585.102(a)(7), BOEM
must also ``[protect] the rights of other authorized users of the
OCS,'' and Sec. 585.102(a)(9) directs BOEM to ``[prevent] interference
with reasonable uses . . . of the [EEZ], the high seas, and the
territorial seas.''
The proposed fairways, TSSs, and precautionary areas would
accomplish this by minimizing conflicts while, preserving the rights
of, and preventing interference with, reasonable users of the EEZ and
surrounding waters.
Given the complex nature of the process that BOEM must take when
proposing and subsequently developing wind energy lease sites,
proposing these fairways, TSSs, and precautionary areas would
facilitate efficient interagency comments between the Coast Guard,
BOEM, and other relevant stakeholders early on during the leasing
process by communicating the locations of historic vessel travel lanes
and areas with high vessel traffic. Additionally, establishing
[[Page 3606]]
these fairways would facilitate quick and unambiguous communication of
less-trafficked and open-water areas for future potential energy
exploration projects and needs.
Individual lease sites issued by BOEM are not on exclusive waters.
This means that vessels in the vicinity of the area are free to transit
through lease sites. However, those vessels must still employ safe
navigation practices.\27\ Similarly, the fairways, proposed by this
NPRM are not restrictive in that vessels are not required to use the
fairways.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ Rules 18 & 19 of Convention of the International Regulation
for Preventing Collision at Sea, 1972.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given the nascent nature of the offshore wind energy industry,
there are relatively few detailed studies regarding vessel and wind
farm interaction. A study from 2015 looked at five wind energy lease
sites in the Thames Estuary and recorded AIS transponder data before
and after wind farm development. This international study notes the
importance of accounting for vessel traffic patterns prior to
establishing wind farms and that traffic management measures are
critical to mitigating potential risks.\28\ A subsequent 2022 study
sponsored by Germany looked at vessel AIS data to gauge the relative
risk in the North and Baltic Seas in the German EEZ. This area of the
German EEZ is also experiencing offshore wind energy project growth. A
principal conclusion from this study is that ``developments in recent
years lead to an increasing safety risk due to limited available
fairways[.]'' \29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ Andrew Rawson and Edward Rogers, ``Assessing the Impacts to
Vessel Traffic from Offshore Wind Farms in the Thames Estuary,''
Scientific Journals of the Maritime University of Szczecin, Volume
43 (115), January 2015, pages 99 through 107. (PDF) Assessing the
impacts to vessel traffic from offshore wind farms in the Thames
Estuary (<a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316460284_Assessing_the_impacts_to_vessel_traffic_from_offshore_wind_farms_in_the_Thames_Estuary">https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316460284_Assessing_the_impacts_to_vessel_traffic_from_offshore_wind_farms_in_the_Thames_Estuary</a>). Last accessed July 21, 2023.
\29\ J[uuml]rgen Weigell, Carlos Jahn; ``Assessing Offshore Wind
Farm Collision Risks Using AIS Data: An Overview.''; Changing Tides:
The New Role of Resilience and Sustainability in Logistics and
Supply Chain Management--Innovative Approaches for the Shift to a
New Era. Proceedings of the Hamburg International Conference of
Logistics (HICL); Vol. 33, ISBN 978-3-756541-95-9, Berlin, Germany;
2022; pages 499 through 521; available at <a href="https://hdl.handle.net/10419/267197">https://hdl.handle.net/10419/267197</a>. Last accessed June 22, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A case study for the Baltic Master project, an international effort
sponsored by the European Union to address maritime safety, looked at
the interaction between vessel traffic and wind farms on the southwest
Baltic Sea. The study noted that when traffic organizing patterns were
applied to areas where vessels transit on a regular basis, those
vessels traveled along more organized, compact, and consistent routes
without incurring additional delays or other unintended consequences.
These passive mitigating measures were observed to reduce the risk of
collision, particularly around wind farms.\30\ This expected risk
reduction would be beneficial to both vessels and wind farms in the
study area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ European Union, Baltic Master; Case Study, ``Kiegers Flak''
I, II, & III; ``Offshore Windfarm Development and the Issue of
Maritime Safety.''; September 2007; <a href="https://discomap.eea.europa.eu/map/Data/Milieu/OURCOAST_191_DE/OURCOAST_191_DE_Doc1_OffshoreWindfarm.pdf">https://discomap.eea.europa.eu/map/Data/Milieu/OURCOAST_191_DE/OURCOAST_191_DE_Doc1_OffshoreWindfarm.pdf</a>. Last accessed June 22,
2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A recent study by the National Academies looked at the interaction
of vessels navigating in wind farms and determined that vessels could
experience interference and reflectivity due to the turbine structures
and blades with additional combining factors which could lead to
degrading effectiveness and confusing navigational pictures.\31\ The
unique combination of factors in wind farms may lead to reduced
navigational effectiveness and lost contact with smaller objects such
as buoys, smaller commercial fishing vessels, and recreational
vessels.\32\ Recommendations from this study concluded that vessels
should use additional caution when transiting through WEAs. Commercial
vessels can instead use the proposed fairways to preserve uninterrupted
access along their traditional routes without experiencing significant
degradation in navigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine,
``Wind Turbine Generator Impacts to Marine Vessel Radar,'' The
National Academies Press, 2022. Available at <a href="https://doi.org/10.17226/26430">https://doi.org/10.17226/26430</a>. Last accessed June 22, 2023.
\32\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed fairways, TSSs, and precautionary areas provide clear
shipping lanes for commercial vessel navigation and allow for safe
navigation in and out of busy U.S. Atlantic ports. This proposed rule
fosters one of the Coast Guard's central missions of maintaining and
securing safe navigable waters for vessels transiting through waters
subject to U.S. jurisdiction. This NPRM also furthers the President's
offshore wind energy goals by minimizing conflicts through advance
notice of traditional commercial maritime routes, sharing in maritime
use rights, and preventing interference with users of the EEZ and
surrounding waters.
Environmental Impact
The Coast Guard is studying the environmental issues that
commenters presented during the ANPRM stage of this rulemaking. NEPA
will provide the primary framework for our environmental analyses, and
we will meet the requirements of other involved environmental statutes
in parallel. These include, but are not limited to the ESA, MMPA,
Magnuson Stevens, Fishery Conservation and Management Act, and CZMA.
The Coast Guard will evaluate the potential environmental effects
associated with this proposed rule and will provide documentation for
public review and comment as discussed in section VII.E, Environment of
this preamble.
The Council on Environmental Quality's regulations require that a
draft EIS ``normally'' accompany a proposed rule. See 40 CFR 1502.5(d).
However, for this proposed rulemaking, the large geographic scope of
the project area poses challenges for the Coast Guard's environmental
review, due to the number of species, issues, and State, Tribal, and
Federal entities with whom it will consult or coordinate. Publishing
this proposed rule before the completion of the draft NEPA document is
part of the Coast Guard's efforts to identify a range of reasonable
alternatives for the environmental review process.
The Coast Guard appreciates its ongoing coordination with BOEM on
the designated fairways. The Coast Guard also appreciates BOEM's
ongoing environmental analysis of the affected environment; it also
recognizes that BOEM's assessments, which focus on small static
sections, are not sufficient for meeting the environmental review
requirements for the Coast Guard's rulemaking process. The Coast
Guard's rulemaking process requires an analysis with a broader scope
along the entire Atlantic Coast. We will use the best available
information to inform this analysis. Given the dynamic nature of the
emerging renewable energy industry, we will also use the public's
continued input to determine new information concurrently with our
rulemaking and incorporate it as practical during the regulatory
development process.
The Coast Guard's environmental coordination and associated
consultations for this rulemaking will include coordination with State
and Federal agencies and federally recognized Tribes pursuant to
governing environmental statutes, regulations, and Executive orders. As
stated above, the Coast Guard is currently gathering
[[Page 3607]]
preliminary data and will initiate its environmental analyses as soon
as possible to determine potential impacts, if any, that establishing
the proposed fairways may have on the environment. We will use the
information collected and analyzed to inform our compliance with NEPA
as well as other involved environmental statutes.
Alternatives
The Coast Guard considered the following alternatives while
developing this proposed rule:
(1) The Coast Guard could take no action. This alternative would
allow for continued conflicts between navigation and proposed offshore
energy development and other competing uses. These conflicts would not
be resolved until later in the lease process, at potential expense and
delays for the OREI developers. This alternative could also put the
priority right of navigation at risk in violation of the Coast Guard's
statutory mandates. In addition, the ``no action'' alternative would
leave the status quo in place, which allows OREI development projects
to be proposed without regard to historic vessel routes. Additionally,
this alternative requires consistent and extensive oversight by the
Coast Guard to monitor all activities undertaken by another Federal
Agency. The status quo is a resource intensive process due to the
continuous and iterative wind energy lease process. For these reasons,
the Coast Guard rejects this alternative.
(2) Instead of establishing the fairways through rulemaking, the
Coast Guard could work with BOEM under a memorandum of agreement to
jointly limit issuance of new leases for offshore wind development to
areas outside of the fairways identified in this NPRM. This alternative
would allow for continued collaboration between the two agencies but
would have to be completed on a case-by-case basis. Beyond efficiency
concerns, which are substantial, this approach lacks the certainty and
stability that comes with codifying the dimensions of the proposed
fairways in the CFR. Under this alternative, offshore energy developers
would not be certain where WEAs can and cannot go, making long-term
strategic planning very difficult.
(3) The third and preferred alternative is to conduct a rulemaking
to codify vessel travel lanes into fairways along the Atlantic Coast to
ensure that vessels traversing waters subject to U.S. jurisdiction
would have unimpeded voyages. The Coast Guard is proposing fairway
routes, TSSs, and precautionary areas, the dimensions of which would be
finalized over the course of the rulemaking process.
B. Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, we have
considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000.
Section 603(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act prescribes the
content of the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, which addresses
the following:
(1) A description of the reasons why action by the agency is being
considered;
(2) A succinct statement of the objectives of, and legal basis for,
this proposed rule;
(3) A description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number
of small entities to which this proposed rule will apply;
(4) A description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping, and
other compliance requirements of this proposed rule, including an
estimate of the classes of small entities that will be subject to the
requirement and the type of professional skills necessary for
preparation of the report or record;
(5) An identification, to the extent practicable, of all relevant
Federal rules that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this
proposed rule; and
(6) A description of any significant alternatives to this proposed
rule that accomplish the stated objectives of applicable statutes and
minimize any significant economic impact of the proposed rule on small
entities.
1. A description of the reasons why the action by the agency is
being considered.
The Coast Guard proposes to establish fairways, TSSs, and
precautionary areas along the Atlantic Coast of the United States as
identified in the PARS. Fairways allow for the implementation of safe
and reliable vessel transit routes along already established traffic
patterns and routes.
The Coast Guard is proposing this action to ensure that traditional
navigation routes are kept free from fixed structures that could affect
navigation safety. The Coast Guard recognizes that current offshore
development trends and other increased shared commercial activities on
the OCS necessitate the preservation of safe commercial shipping lanes
as fairways. Fairways, TSSs, and precautionary areas are necessary to
preserve traditional maritime commerce routes and safe access to U.S.
ports and protect them from the emplacement of fixed structures that
could impact navigation safety.
2. A succinct statement of the objective of, and legal basis for,
this proposed rule.
This NPRM proposes to codify existing vessel traffic patterns into
fairways, TSSs, and precautionary areas along the Atlantic Coast of the
United States to ensure that traditional navigation routes are kept
free from fixed structures that could affect navigation safety.
Chapter 700, Ports and Waterways Safety, of Title 46 U.S.C.
authorizes the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is
operating to take certain actions to advance port, harbor, and coastal
facility safety and security. Specifically, 46 U.S.C. 70001 and 70034
authorize the Secretary to promulgate regulations to establish
reporting and operating requirements, surveillance and communications
systems, routing systems, and fairways. The Secretary has delegated
this authority to the Commandant of the Coast Guard (DHS Delegation
00170.1, Revision No. 01.3, paragraph (II)(70)).
3. A description-and, where feasible, an estimate of the number-of
small entities to which this proposed rule will apply.
The Coast Guard is proposing 18 fairways and 1 fairway anchorage.
These fairways are based on the fairways described in the ANPRM and
have been further refined based on public comments, consultation with
other Federal Government agencies, and the recommendations from the
PARS. Fairways are corridors that set aside areas of sufficient depth
and dimensions to accommodate vessels to allow for the orderly and safe
movements of vessels transiting to or from ports. Designating a
particular area as a fairway establishes the requirement that the area
remains free of fixed structures that could pose navigational hazards
or impediments. These fairways would be established next to and in the
vicinity of existing lease sites as described in table 35.
We gathered and examined information on BOEM's lease sites to
evaluate the size of the lessees.\33\ We examined lease documents,
assignment documents, and company information
[[Page 3608]]
using open and proprietary sources \34\ to determine which entities
were leasing each site, as well as their principal business operation
as determined by their primary North American Industry Classification
System (NAICS) code, to make a determination whether each of the
entities is considered to be a small entity according to the Small
Business Administration's (SBA) standards.\35\ Using the latest table
of small business size standards for each NAICS code from the SBA, we
determine the threshold amount and category type for each small entity
and present the results in table 36 below organized by NAICS code.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ BOEM Lease and Grant Information web page. Available at
<a href="https://www.boem.gov/renewable-energy/lease-and-grant-information">https://www.boem.gov/renewable-energy/lease-and-grant-information</a>.
Last accessed May 23, 2023
\34\ Reference USA U.S. Business Research, <a href="https://www.referenceusagov.com/">https://www.referenceusagov.com/</a>. Last accessed May 23, 2023.
\35\ U.S. Small Business Administration Table of Size Standards,
<a href="https://www.sba.gov/document/support-table-size-standards">https://www.sba.gov/document/support-table-size-standards</a>. Last
accessed May 23, 2023. PDF Table link: <a href="https://www.sba.gov/sites/sbagov/files/2023-03/Table%20of%20Size%20Standards_Effective%20March%2017%2C%202023%20%281%29%20%281%29_0.pdf">https://www.sba.gov/sites/sbagov/files/2023-03/Table%20of%20Size%20Standards_Effective%20March%2017%2C%202023%20%281%29%20%281%29_0.pdf</a>.
Table 36--Number of Small Entities Affected by This Proposed Rule
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SBA size Number of Number of
NAICS code NAICS code and industry type Size standard type standard entities small entities
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
213112................................... Support Activities for Oil and Revenue (Millions)......... $47.0 2 0
Gas Operations.
221115................................... Wind Electric Power Generation.. Employees.................. 1,150 2 0
221121................................... Electric Bulk Power Transmission Employees.................. 950 1 0
and Control.
221122................................... Electrical Power Distribution... Employees.................. 1,100 5 0
238220................................... Plumbing, Heating, and Air Revenue (Millions)......... $19.0 1 0
Conditioning Contractors.
333611................................... Turbine & turbine Generator Set Employees.................. 1,500 1 0
Unit Manufacturing.
541715................................... Research and Development in the Employees.................. 1,000 1 0
Physical, Engineering, and Life
Sciences (except Nanotechnology
and Biotechnology).
525910................................... Open End Investment Funds....... Revenue (Millions)......... $40.0 1 0
811310................................... Commercial and Industrial Revenue (Millions)......... $12.5 1 0
Machinery and Equipment (except
Automotive and Electronic)
Repair and Maintenance.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 29 active WEA lease sites we identified in table 35 earlier are
being developed or operated by 14 unique companies and one State
Government entity partnering with a research entity (NAICS 541715),
none of which are considered to be small entities as determined by SBA
size standards.
Discussion of effect
These fairways, TSSs, and precautionary areas would not intersect
any existing wind energy lease sites and those sites would not be
restricted in their operations. As such, we do not expect any impact to
leaseholders from the proposed fairways nor any costs to the
leaseholder companies. As previously discussed in section VI.
Discussion of Proposed Rule, vessels would be free to transit along
other routes outside the proposed fairways and we expect vessels would
continue to operate as they have historically. Since this NPRM would
not impact existing vessel behavior, the Coast Guard determined that
there are no costs associated to vessel operators; therefore, costs
were not further evaluated. If you think that your business,
organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity
and that this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on
it, please submit a comment to the docket at the address listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this preamble. In your comment, explain why you
think it qualifies and how and to what degree this proposed rule would
economically affect it.
4. A description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping, and
other compliance requirements of this proposed rule, including an
estimate of the classes of small entities that will be subject to the
requirements and the type of professional skills necessary for
preparation of the report or record.
This proposed rule calls for no new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.
5. An identification, to the extent practicable, of all relevant
Federal rules that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the
proposed rule.
There are no relevant Federal rules that may duplicate, overlap, or
conflict with this NPRM.
6. A description of any significant alternatives to this proposed
rule that accomplish the stated objectives of applicable statutes and
minimize any significant economic impact of the proposed rule on small
entities.
The Coast Guard identified three alternatives for this proposed
rule as identified earlier in the Alternatives discussion. During our
review, the Coast Guard did not identify any small entities which would
be affected by this proposed rule. Therefore, the Coast Guard did not
consider any additional alternatives specifically tailored to minimize
impacts on small entities.
7. Conclusion.
We are interested in the potential impacts from this proposed rule
on small businesses and we request public comment on these potential
impacts. If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this proposed rule
would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment
to the docket at the address listed in the ADDRESSES section of this
preamble. In your comment, explain why you think it qualifies and how
and to what degree this proposed rule would economically affect it.
C. Assistance for Small Entities
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104-121, we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule, so that they can better
evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the
proposed rule would affect your small business, organization, or
governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning the
proposed rule's provisions or options for compliance, please call or
email the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
proposed rule. The Coast Guard will not retaliate
[[Page 3609]]
against small entities that question or complain about this proposed
rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247).
D. Collection of Information
This proposed rule would call for no new or revised collection of
information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-
3520, nor would it impact any existing collection of information.
E. Federalism
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132
(Federalism) if it has a substantial direct effect on States, on the
relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order
13132 and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental
federalism principles and preemption requirements described in
Executive Order 13132. Our analysis follows.
It is well settled that States may not regulate in categories
reserved for regulation by the Coast Guard. Title 46, Sections 70001
and 70034 of the U.S.C. make it clear that the Coast Guard has the sole
authority ``to construct, operate, maintain, improve, or expand vessel
traffic services,'' which include fairways, TSSs, and precautionary
areas. This authority extends to the ability to issue regulations to
implement such services.
While it is well settled that States may not regulate in categories
in which Congress intended the Coast Guard to be the sole administrator
of such services, the Coast Guard recognizes the key role that State
and local governments may have in making regulatory determinations.
Additionally, for rules with federalism implications and preemptive
effect, Executive Order 13132 specifically directs agencies to consult
with State and local governments during the rulemaking process. If you
believe this proposed rule would have implications for federalism under
Executive Order 13132, please call or email the person listed in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble.
F. Unfunded Mandates
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538,
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Although this proposed rule would
not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this
proposed rule elsewhere in this preamble.
G. Taking of Private Property
This proposed rule would not cause a taking of private property or
otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630
(Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected
Property Rights).
H. Civil Justice Reform
This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and
3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, (Civil Justice Reform), to minimize
litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
I. Protection of Children
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045
(Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks). This proposed rule is not an economically significant rule and
would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that
might disproportionately affect children.
J. Indian Tribal Governments
This proposed rule may have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments), because it may have a substantial direct effect on one or
more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government
and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. In accordance with
DHS' Tribal Consultation Policy, the Coast Guard will initiate a
process of meaningful and timely consultation with federally recognized
Tribes to determine the impact of the proposed rule on Tribal concerns.
This process involves four steps: (1) preparation and identification of
Tribes directly affected and issues, (2) a notification of consultation
to potentially affected Tribal Nations, (3) receiving Tribal input and
adjudicating that input, and (4) follow-up to explain how the results
of the consultation were incorporated.
K. Energy Effects
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211
(Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use). We have determined that it is not a
``significant energy action'' under that order because although it is a
``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866, as
amended by Executive Order 14094, it is not likely to have a
significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of
energy. While it is true that this proposed rule could have impacts on
BOEM's effort to promulgate renewable energy lease areas on the
Atlantic OCS, the Coast Guard has worked closely with BOEM throughout
the rulemaking process to ensure that this proposed rule would not
create inconsistency or interfere with BOEM's leasing efforts.
L. Technical Standards
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act, codified as a
note to 15 U.S.C. 272, directs agencies to use voluntary consensus
standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides
Congress, through OMB, with an explanation of why using these standards
would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical.
Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g.,
specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test
methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices)
that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies.
This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we
did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
M. Environment
We have analyzed this proposed rule under DHS Management Directive
023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental
Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in
complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C.
4321 et seq). The Coast Guard will conduct an EIS to evaluate the
potential environmental effects associated with this proposal and will
provide documentation for public
[[Page 3610]]
review and comment in the docket, where indicated under the Public
Participation and Request for Comments section of this preamble. We
encourage the public to submit comments on the documents as they are
posted. The public will be allotted the customary comment periods for
each item.
The large geographic scope of the project area poses challenges for
the Coast Guard's environmental evaluations, due to the number of
species that occur in the project area, the variety of issues in play
that are evaluated as part of the Coast Guard's NEPA assessment, and
the number of stakeholder entities with whom the Coast Guard will
consult or coordinate. To address these challenges, the Coast Guard is
publishing this NPRM without the draft NEPA document that usually
accompanies a NPRM. Continued public input will help the Coast Guard
identify a reasonable number of alternatives to explore during the
environmental review process. The Coast Guard's environmental
coordination for this rulemaking will include coordination with State
and Federal agencies, and federally recognized Tribes pursuant to
several cultural resource and environmental statutes (including NEPA,
ESA, the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, CZMA, and MMPA).
This proposed rule involves possibly establishing and codifying
fairways, TSSs, and precautionary areas based on existing vessel
traffic patterns at key transportation nodes to major domestic ports
along the Atlantic Coast of the United States. The proposed navigation
safety corridors presented in this NPRM are informed by ACPARS as
expanded upon by the consolidated PARS supplemental efforts. This
system of fairways, TSSs, and precautionary areas is intended to ensure
that traditional navigation routes are kept free from fixed and affixed
structures that could impact navigation safety. These fairways, TSSs,
and precautionary areas would support the Coast Guard's Ports and
Waterways Safety; Aids to Navigation; Marine Safety; and Marine
Environmental Protection missions by identifying safe and efficient
traffic schemes to serve vessels moving to or among Atlantic Coast
ports, thereby reducing opportunities for incidents that could result
in casualties or environmental damage. We seek any comments or
information that may lead to the discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this proposed rule.
List of Subjects
33 CFR Part 166
Anchorage grounds, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Waterways.
33 CFR Part 167
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard is
proposing to amend 33 CFR parts 166 and 167 as follows:
PART 166--SHIPPING SAFETY FAIRWAYS
0
1. The authority citation for part 166 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 46 U.S.C. 70001, 70003; DHS Delegation No. 00170.0,
Revision No. 01.3, paragraph (II)(70).
0
2. In Sec. 166.500, revise paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 166.500 Areas along the Atlantic Coast.
* * * * *
(b) Designated Areas--
(1) Long Island Fairway. The area enclosed by rhumb lines, joining
points at:
Table 1 to Sec. 166.500(b)(1)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Latitude Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
40[deg]29'15'' N 73[deg]32'03'' W
40[deg]31'02'' N 73[deg]35'17'' W
40[deg]30'15'' N 73[deg]41'25'' W
40[deg]31'33'' N 73[deg]42'23'' W
40[deg]35'59'' N 73[deg]11'39'' W
41[deg]06'31'' N 71[deg]30'24'' W
41[deg]02'51'' N 71[deg]29'06'' W
40[deg]48'05'' N 71[deg]59'27'' W
40[deg]32'38'' N 72[deg]50'50'' W
40[deg]32'12'' N 73[deg]11'28'' W
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Datum: WGS 84
(2) Nantucket to Ambrose Fairway. The area enclosed by rhumb lines,
joining points at:
Table 1 to Sec. 166.500(b)(2)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Latitude Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
40[deg]32'20'' N 73[deg]04'55'' W
40[deg]30'59'' N 72[deg]57'39'' W
40[deg]34'07'' N 70[deg]19'26'' W
40[deg]35'41'' N 70[deg]14'02'' W
40[deg]22'38'' N 70[deg]13'34'' W
40[deg]24'07'' N 70[deg]19'03'' W
40[deg]20'57'' N 72[deg]58'22'' W
40[deg]19'20'' N 73[deg]04'56'' W
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Datum: WGS 84
(3) Hudson Canyon to Ambrose Eastern Fairway. The area enclosed by
rhumb lines, joining points at:
Table 1 to Sec. 166.500(b)(3)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Latitude Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
40[deg]08'25'' N 72[deg]38'18'' W
40[deg]08'25'' N 72[deg]27'34'' W
40[deg]08'25'' N 72[deg]00'00'' W
40[deg]03'25'' N 72[deg]00'00'' W
40[deg]03'25'' N 72[deg]27'34'' W
40[deg]03'25'' N 72[deg]53'15'' W
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Datum: WGS 84
(4) Hudson Canyon to Ambrose Southeastern approach Fairway. The
area enclosed by rhumb lines, joining points at:
Table 1 to Sec. 166.500(b)(4)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Latitude Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
40[deg]01'32'' N 72[deg]58'53'' W
40[deg]00'20'' N 72[deg]56'59'' W
39[deg]42'19'' N 72[deg]34'32'' W
39[deg]24'19'' N 72[deg]12'12'' W
39[deg]06'19'' N 71[deg]49'57'' W
38[deg]48'19'' N 71[deg]27'49'' W
38[deg]30'19'' N 71[deg]05'45'' W
38[deg]12'19'' N 70[deg]43'48'' W
37[deg]54'40'' N 70[deg]22'22'' W
37[deg]45'55'' N 70[deg]38'53'' W
38[deg]01'33'' N 70[deg]57'56'' W
38[deg]19'33'' N 71[deg]19'57'' W
38[deg]37'33'' N 71[deg]42'04'' W
38[deg]55'33'' N 72[deg]04'17'' W
39[deg]13'33'' N 72[deg]26'35'' W
39[deg]31'33'' N 72[deg]48'59'' W
39[deg]49'33'' N 73[deg]11'28'' W
39[deg]55'14'' N 73[deg]17'43'' W
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Datum: WGS 84
(5) Barnegat to Narragansett Fairway. The area enclosed by rhumb
lines, joining points at:
Table 1 to Sec. 166.500(b)(5)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Latitude Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
39[deg]53'10'' N 73[deg]53'21'' W
39[deg]57'38'' N 73[deg]40'25'' W
40[deg]02'24'' N 73[deg]26'33'' W
40[deg]09'01'' N 73[deg]10'49'' W
40[deg]09'37'' N 73[deg]06'52'' W
40[deg]48'05'' N 71[deg]59'27'' W
41[deg]02'51'' N 71[deg]29'06'' W
41[deg]02'11'' N 71[deg]18'13'' W
40[deg]20'32'' N 72[deg]02'02'' W
40[deg]01'32'' N 72[deg]58'53'' W
39[deg]55'14'' N 73[deg]17'43'' W
39[deg]48'21'' N 73[deg]38'17'' W
39[deg]42'55'' N 73[deg]54'32'' W
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Datum: WGS 84
(6) New Jersey to New York Connector Fairway. The area enclosed by
rhumb lines, joining points at:
[[Page 3611]]
Table 1 to Sec. 166.500(b)(6)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Latitude Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
38[deg]48'54'' N 74[deg]47'17'' W
38[deg]48'19'' N 74[deg]55'24'' W
39[deg]29'42'' N 74[deg]12'28'' W
39[deg]47'36'' N 74[deg]00'38'' W
40[deg]22'17'' N 73[deg]55'58'' W
40[deg]20'30'' N 73[deg]49'38'' W
39[deg]52'58'' N 73[deg]53'22'' W
39[deg]42'55'' N 73[deg]54'32'' W
39[deg]41'42'' N 73[deg]58'10'' W
39[deg]35'15'' N 74[deg]02'59'' W
39[deg]27'30'' N 74[deg]08'07'' W
39[deg]06'13'' N 74[deg]30'01'' W
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Datum: WGS 84
(7) St. Lucie to New York Fairway. The area enclosed by rhumb
lines, joining points at:
Table 1 to Sec. 166.500(b)(7)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Latitude Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
36[deg]17'51'' N 74[deg]26'02'' W
35[deg]17'41'' N 74[deg]40'46'' W
34[deg]33'21'' N 74[deg]52'32'' W
33[deg]57'08'' N 75[deg]20'14'' W
32[deg]49'16'' N 76[deg]06'42'' W
31[deg]37'49'' N 76[deg]51'25'' W
29[deg]36'06'' N 78[deg]06'19'' W
27[deg]46'56'' N 79[deg]12'18'' W
27[deg]51'00'' N 79[deg]21'20'' W
29[deg]40'20'' N 78[deg]15'25'' W
31[deg]42'04'' N 77[deg]00'43'' W
32[deg]53'37'' N 76[deg]16'03'' W
34[deg]01'48'' N 75[deg]29'30'' W
34[deg]36'50'' N 75[deg]02'46'' W
35[deg]19'31'' N 74[deg]51'32'' W
36[deg]07'03'' N 74[deg]39'60'' W
37[deg]59'00'' N 74[deg]25'56'' W
38[deg]18'34'' N 74[deg]18'21'' W
38[deg]41'08'' N 74[deg]09'36'' W
38[deg]52'59'' N 74[deg]05'01'' W
39[deg]15'49'' N 73[deg]56'09'' W
39[deg]42'55'' N 73[deg]54'32'' W
39[deg]45'42'' N 73[deg]46'12'' W
39[deg]48'21'' N 73[deg]38'17'' W
39[deg]45'42'' N 73[deg]37'40'' W
39[deg]11'38'' N 73[deg]40'30'' W
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Datum: WGS 84
(8) Offshore Delaware Bay to New Jersey Connector Fairway. The area
enclosed by rhumb lines, joining points at:
Table 1 to Sec. 166.500(b)(8)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Latitude Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
38[deg]19'43'' N 74[deg]30'38'' W
38[deg]44'27'' N 74[deg]33'19'' W
38[deg]49'48'' N 74[deg]33'54'' W
39[deg]01'14'' N 74[deg]35'09'' W
39[deg]06'13'' N 74[deg]30'01'' W
39[deg]01'41'' N 74[deg]30'03'' W
38[deg]49'47'' N 74[deg]28'44'' W
38[deg]44'26'' N 74[deg]28'09'' W
38[deg]21'04'' N 74[deg]25'35'' W
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Datum: WGS 84
(9) Delaware Bay Fairway Anchorage. The area enclosed by rhumb
lines, joining points at:
Table 1 to Sec. 166.500(b)(9)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Latitude Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
38[deg]31'23'' N 74[deg]35'39'' W
38[deg]32'23'' N 74[deg]32'01'' W
38[deg]19'43'' N 74[deg]30'38'' W
38[deg]28'48'' N 74[deg]39'18'' W
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Datum: WGS 84
(10) Cape Charles to Delaware Bay Fairway. The area enclosed by
rhumb lines, joining points at:
Table 1 to Sec. 166.500(b)(10)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Latitude Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
38[deg]31'31'' N 74[deg]55'28'' W
37[deg]53'08'' N 74[deg]56'45'' W
36[deg]59'41'' N 75[deg]36'05'' W
37[deg]01'39'' N 75[deg]47'38'' W
38[deg]01'17'' N 75[deg]04'15'' W
38[deg]42'50'' N 74[deg]58'56'' W
38[deg]37'15'' N 74[deg]54'09'' W
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Datum: WGS 84
(11) Chesapeake Bay to Delaware Bay: Eastern approach Cutoff
Fairway. The area enclosed by rhumb lines, joining points at:
Table 1 to Sec. 166.500(b)(11)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Latitude Longitude
-------------------------------
[…truncated; see source link]Indexed from Federal Register on January 19, 2024.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.