Proposed Rule2024-26830
Shipping Safety Fairways in the Gulf of Maine
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
November 19, 2024
Issuing agencies
Homeland Security DepartmentCoast Guard
Abstract
The Coast Guard seeks comments regarding the possible establishment of shipping safety fairways ("fairways") in the Gulf of Maine identified in the Approaches to Maine, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts Port Access Route Study. This potential system of fairways is intended to ensure that traditional navigation routes are kept free from fixed structures that could impact navigation safety.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 89 Issue 223 (Tuesday, November 19, 2024)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 223 (Tuesday, November 19, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 91296-91299]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2024-26830]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 166
[Docket No. USCG-2024-0248]
RIN 1625-AC97
Shipping Safety Fairways in the Gulf of Maine
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard seeks comments regarding the possible
establishment of shipping safety fairways (``fairways'') in the Gulf of
Maine identified in the Approaches to Maine, New Hampshire, and
Massachusetts Port Access Route Study.
[[Page 91297]]
This potential system of fairways is intended to ensure that
traditional navigation routes are kept free from fixed structures that
could impact navigation safety.
DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before January 21, 2025.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2024-0248 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 Mr. Brian Mottel, Coast Guard; telephone 202-372-1526,
email <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#185c796e717c365a3655776c6c7d742a586d6b7b7f36757174"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="96d2f7e0fff2b8d4b8dbf9e2e2f3faa4d6e3e5f5f1b8fbfffa">[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. Information Requested
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 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-2024-0248 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 advance notice of
proposed rulemaking for alternate instructions.
Viewing material in docket. To view documents mentioned in this
advance notice of proposed rulemaking 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'' web page. That web 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 this advance notice of
proposed rulemaking. 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 to the docket in
response to this document, see the Department of Homeland Security'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
ANPRM Advance notice of proposed rulemaking
BOEM Bureau of Ocean Energy Management
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
Fairways Shipping safety fairways
FR Federal Register
MNMPARS Approaches to Maine-New Hampshire-Massachusetts Port Access
Route Study
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
OCS Outer Continental Shelf
Sec. Section
TSS Traffic separation scheme
U.S.C. United States Code
WEA Wind Energy Area
III. Basis and Purpose
The purpose of this advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM)
is to seek public input on the potential establishment of shipping
safety fairways (``fairways'') in the Gulf of Maine. The fairway
locations would be added to title 33 of the Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) part 166. The Approaches to Maine, New Hampshire, and
Massachusetts Port Access Route Study (MNMPARS) \1\ found that fairways
are needed to preserve safe navigation routes to and from U.S. ports
throughout the study area, and recommended coordinates for these
fairways. The Coast Guard is considering these coordinates as its
starting point for the potential establishment of fairways in the Gulf
of Maine.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Port Access Route Study: Approaches to Maine, New Hampshire,
and Massachusetts Final report, <a href="https://www.navcen.uscg.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/PARS/FINAL_REPORT_Approaches_to_Maine_New_Hampshire_and_Massachusetts_Port_Access_Route_Study.pdf">https://www.navcen.uscg.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/PARS/FINAL_REPORT_Approaches_to_Maine_New_Hampshire_and_Massachusetts_Port_Access_Route_Study.pdf</a>. Last accessed July 5, 2024. A notice of
availability for the MNMPARS was published April 6, 2023 (88 FR
20547).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Establishing the recommended fairways would prohibit artificial
islands or fixed structures within designated areas and would reduce
the risk of vessel collisions, allisions, and groundings. Fairways
would also reduce the potential for increased transit time and
associated economic impacts that could result from redirecting vessel
traffic, should offshore structures be integrated into the Marine
Transportation System on the outer continental shelf (OCS).
The MNMPARS and follow-on analysis confirmed the need to codify
traditional routes into fairways in the study area. As such, the Coast
Guard believes it is prudent to proceed with an ANPRM, followed by a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) and final rule. This strategy
enables robust engagement with interested persons who may not have
contributed to the MNMPARS, supports further evolution of regulatory
alternatives, enhances the Coast Guard's understanding of regional
spatial planning needs, and reduces the need for a supplemental NPRM
before a final rule.
The legal basis for the potential establishment of fairways is
Title 46 of the United States Code (U.S.C.), section 70003; Department
of Homeland Security (DHS) Delegation No. 00170.1(II)(70), Revision No.
01.4.
IV. Background
The First Coast Guard District conducted the MNMPARS from March 31,
2022, to April 6, 2023. The study concluded that vessels transiting in
the vicinity of offshore renewable energy lease areas may be affected,
especially near or within traditional vessel traffic routes. Existing
traffic separation schemes (TSSs) are established for vessels entering
and exiting the ports of Portland, ME and Boston, MA; however, the TSSs
do not extend far enough into the OCS to account for planned offshore
renewable energy development within the study area.
Currently, no commercial leases have been awarded in the MNMPARS
study area; however, on March 15, 2024, the Bureau of Ocean Energy
Management
[[Page 91298]]
(BOEM) announced \2\ the designation of a Final Wind Energy Area (WEA)
in the Gulf of Maine, containing approximately 2 million acres of
Federal waters for potential leasing. The agency issued a Final Sale
Notice on September 17, 2024, identifying the final lease areas that
will be auctioned at an October 29, 2024 lease sale. A portion of
BOEM's initially proposed lease areas (OCS-A-562 and OCS-A-563)
overlapped the recommended Gulf of Maine Fairway identified in the
MNMPARS. However, BOEM's Final Sale Notice removes the conflicting
overlap with the recommended fairway in the final lease areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ ``BOEM Finalizes Wind Energy Area in the Gulf of Maine and
Announces Upcoming Environmental Review of Potential Offshore Wind
Leasing Activities,'' Bureau of Ocean Energy Management; <a href="https://www.boem.gov/newsroom/press-releases/boem-finalizes-wind-energy-area-gulf-maine-and-announces-upcoming">https://www.boem.gov/newsroom/press-releases/boem-finalizes-wind-energy-area-gulf-maine-and-announces-upcoming</a>. Last accessed April 23,
2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, BOEM has finalized and issued a 15,000-acre research
lease to the State of Maine with an effective date of Sep 1, 2024. The
project would construct up to 12 floating wind turbines adjacent to the
Eastern Approach TSS, which is approximately 20 nautical miles off the
coast of Portland, ME. BOEM, USCG, and the state of Maine have worked
together to deconflict the research lease with the recommended fairways
and existing navigation safety systems. In order to provide a
dependable and safe corridor for mariners in the area, the Coast Guard
is considering an alternative fairway design for the Portland Eastern
Approach Fairway that is different in design than the fairway
recommended by the MNMPARS. This alternative fairway design is intended
to meet vessel traffic needs, while also considering other uses of the
waterway.
In summary, the Coast Guard is seeking input on the potential to
establish four fairways, as recommended by the MNMPARS (Massachusetts
Bay Fairway, Coastal Zone Fairway, Portland Southern Approach Fairway,
and Gulf of Maine Fairway), and one fairway (Portland Eastern Approach
Fairway) that is a different design than the fairway recommended by the
MNMPARS.
V. Information Requested
In this ANPRM, the Coast Guard seeks information and your input to
assist us in establishing, through a potential future rulemaking,
fairways in the Gulf of Maine. The Coast Guard seeks public comments,
positive or negative, on the impacts that the potential fairways may
have on navigational safety and on other activities in these offshore
areas to aid us in developing an NPRM and the supporting analyses.
Where possible and pertinent, please provide sources, citations,
and references to back up or justify your responses. Also, for all
pertinent responses, please provide a detailed explanation of how you
arrived at this conclusion, and your underlying assessment that
supports your conclusion. Finally, for all numerical responses, please
provide us with sufficient information to recreate your calculations.
The following questions were designed to scope this process:
A. General Questions
The Coast Guard encourages all respondents to review and reference
the MNMPARS, specifically the Executive Summary, Purpose, and
Background sections, as well as the illustrations, when responding to
the following questions. These resources can be found in the docket.
1. Do the recommended fairways provide safe and efficient routes
for vessels transiting to and from international ports and the United
States? Why or why not? If not, what would you recommend instead?
2. Are the recommended fairways described in this ANPRM necessary
for ensuring a safe and orderly passage for vessels transiting among
U.S. domestic ports of call? Why or why not? Please explain your
answer, including your specific comments on how the fairways described
in this ANPRM would affect maritime traffic patterns, navigational
safety, and access to ports.
3. Are there any positive or negative impacts of not establishing
the recommended fairways noted in this ANPRM? If so, please describe
them.
4. If these recommended fairways are established, how would
commercial fishing vessels be positively or negatively impacted?
5. If these recommended fairways are established, what other
persons, entities, or organizations would be positively or negatively
impacted? In other words, which groups of people, businesses, or
industries (maritime and non-maritime) would be positively or
negatively impacted by these potential fairways?
6. What other offshore uses may be positively or negatively
affected by the recommended fairways? Please include specific
locations, potential impact, and associated costs or benefits. Please
also describe the safety significance of the recommended fairways on
the activity.
7. Do the recommended fairways unduly limit offshore development?
If so, is there information on costs, or cost model or structure that
should be considered for analysis?
8. From an environmental perspective, would the recommended
fairways (on traditional routes) negatively impact living marine
resources? If so, which marine resources would be impacted and how?
What measures should the Coast Guard take to avoid, minimize, or
mitigate any such impacts?
9. Beyond the environmental impacts mentioned in question 8, are
there any other positive or negative environmental impacts from the
recommended fairways? If so, please provide detail as to how and what
would be impacted. To the degree possible, please provide the data,
impact assessments, and other pertinent background information
necessary to understand and reproduce your results.
10. Are there additional measures that should be considered to
improve safety or to relieve the area should an economic burden be
imposed by the recommended fairways? What are the expected costs and/or
associated benefits of the suggested additional measures?
11. Are there other variables that should be considered in
developing this system of recommended fairways? If so, please indicate
particular issues and the specific areas to which they pertain.
12. Have there been any offshore developments built or installed in
the past 10 years that have impacted traffic patterns, navigational
safety, or maritime commerce? If so, were the net impacts positive or
negative? Please provide a detailed explanation of how you arrived at
this conclusion.
13. Please offer any other comments or suggestions that may improve
this initiative.
B. Portland Eastern Approach Fairway
The Coast Guard is proposing a Portland Eastern Approach Fairway
that is slightly different in design than the fairway recommended by
the MNMPARS. The fairway contemplated in this ANPRM is designed to meet
the needs of vessel traffic entering and departing the Port of Portland
via the Eastern Approach TSS, while also considering the state of
Maine's lease adjacent to the TSS to develop a 15,000-acre research
array of up to 12 floating offshore wind turbines.
1. Are there any positive or negative impacts from the recommended
Portland Eastern Approach Fairway? Please explain your answer,
including specific comments on how this recommended fairway would
affect maritime traffic patterns, navigational
[[Page 91299]]
safety, marine or other environmental resources, and access to ports.
2. Does the recommended Portland Eastern Approach Fairway provide a
safe and efficient route for vessels transiting to and from the Eastern
Approach TSS? Why or why not? If not, what would you recommend instead?
3. Would the recommended Portland Eastern Approach Fairway have any
positive or negative environmental impacts?
4. Would the recommended Portland Eastern Approach Fairway have any
positive or negative tribal impacts?
C. Gulf of Maine Fairway
The Coast Guard is proposing a Gulf of Maine Fairway to meet the
needs of vessel traffic primarily proceeding between Boston,
Massachusetts, and the Bay of Fundy. The Coast Guard may consider
design alternatives to the recommended Gulf of Maine Fairway to ensure
safe transit for vessels, while providing ocean space for wind energy
leasing.
1. Are there any positive or negative economic impacts from the
recommended Gulf of Maine Fairway?
2. Is the recommended Gulf of Maine Fairway necessary to provide
safe and efficient routes for vessels transiting to and from domestic
and international ports? Why or why not? If not, what would you
recommend instead?
3. What are the positive or negative vessel transit impacts to
altering the recommended fairway's design, location, and
characteristics, such as narrower width and change in cardinal
direction? Please explain your answer, including specific comments on
how any changes to this recommended fairway would affect maritime
traffic patterns, navigational safety, marine or other environmental
resources, and access to ports.
4. What other offshore uses may be positively or negatively
impacted by alteration to this recommended fairway design, location,
and characteristics, such as narrower width and change in cardinal
direction? Please include specific locations, potential impact, and
associated costs or benefits. Please also describe the safety
significance of alterations to this recommended fairway on other
offshore use activity.
5. If this fairway is established as recommended, what persons,
entities, or organizations would be positively or negatively impacted?
In other words, which groups of people, businesses, or industries
(maritime and non-maritime) would be positively or negatively impacted
by this recommended fairway?
6. Would the recommended Gulf of Maine Fairway have any positive or
negative environmental impacts?
7. Would the recommended Gulf of Maine Fairway have any positive or
negative tribal impacts?
Linda L. Fagan,
Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commandant.
[FR Doc. 2024-26830 Filed 11-18-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on November 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.