Proposed Rule2026-03044
Sabine Pass Safety Fairway Anchorages
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
February 17, 2026
Issuing agencies
Homeland Security DepartmentCoast Guard
Abstract
The Coast Guard proposes to establish two new fairway anchorages adjacent to the existing safety fairway approaches to Sabine Bank and Sabine Pass, Texas. These two additional fairway anchorages would be in deeper water than the existing anchorages along the Sabine Pass fairway to accommodate vessels, primarily petroleum tankers, with deeper drafts. This rulemaking enhances the efficient transportation of energy resources and advances our national energy dominance. The establishment of these anchorages in deeper waters enhances navigation safety and the flow of commerce, contributing to economic growth and national energy security.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 31 (Tuesday, February 17, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 31 (Tuesday, February 17, 2026)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 7190-7199]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-03044]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 166
[Docket No. USCG-2024-0893]
RIN 1625-AC95
Sabine Pass Safety Fairway Anchorages
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish two new fairway
anchorages adjacent to the existing safety fairway approaches to Sabine
Bank and Sabine Pass, Texas. These two additional fairway anchorages
would be in deeper water than the existing anchorages along the Sabine
Pass fairway to accommodate vessels, primarily petroleum tankers, with
deeper drafts. This rulemaking enhances the efficient transportation of
energy resources and advances our national energy dominance. The
establishment of these anchorages in deeper waters enhances navigation
safety and the flow of commerce, contributing to economic growth and
national energy security.
DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before May 18, 2026.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2024-0893 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. This notice of
proposed rulemaking, with its plain-language, 100-word-or-less proposed
rule summary, will be available in this same docket.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information about this document
call or email Timothy Spence, Coast Guard Office of Navigation Systems;
telephone 571-608-1962, email <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#5d09343032293524731c730e2d38333e381d282e3e3a73303431"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="7024191d1f0418095e315e2300151e131530050313175e1d191c">[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 Proposed Rule
VI. 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 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 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-
2024-0893 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 to the docket in
response to this document, see DHS's eRulemaking System of Records
notice (85 FR 14226, March 11, 2020).
[[Page 7191]]
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
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
MTS Marine Transportation System
OMB Office of Management and Budget
Sec. Section
SNWW Sabine-Neches Waterway
U.S.C. United States Code
VTS Vessel Traffic Service
WGS84 World Geodetic System 1984
III. Basis and Purpose
The legal basis for this rulemaking is 46 U.S.C. Chapter 700, and
specifically 46 U.S.C. 70003 and 70034. Section 70003 authorizes the
Secretary to designate necessary fairways and traffic separation
schemes for vessels operating in the territorial sea of the United
States and in high seas approaches, outside the territorial sea, to
provide safe access routes for the movement of vessel traffic
proceeding to or from ports or places. Establishing the deeper fairways
anchorage locations adjacent to the existing fairways would advance the
Sabine Pass Fairway's purpose to provide safe access routes for the
movement of vessel traffic proceeding to or from ports. Section 70034
grants the Secretary authority to issue regulations necessary to
implement 46 U.S.C. Chapter 700, Subchapters I through IV, which
includes Section 70001. The Secretary delegated these authorities to
the U.S. Coast Guard in Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.4, paragraph (II)(70).
The purpose of this rulemaking is to amend 33 CFR 166.200 to
establish two new voluntary use fairway anchorages off the Texas and
Louisiana coastlines. A chartlet and Geographic Information System data
showing the proposed locations for the fairway anchorages are available
in the docket for this rulemaking (see the Public Participation and
Request for Comments portion of the preamble for directions on
accessing the docket). The proposed regulations would provide charted
locations for safe anchorage of vessels with drafts too deep to use
existing fairway anchorages. Any vessel operator may use the fairway
anchorages. The new fairway anchorages would reduce the potential for
collisions, allisions, and groundings for vessels arriving, holding, or
anchoring. For these reasons, the fairways anchorages would promote the
efficient movement of commerce. The proposed deeper anchorage areas
would also advance the goals of Executive Order 14154, Unleashing
American Energy, by providing the unobstructed and safe flow of energy
transportation, primarily petroleum tanker ships, to and from ports in
the Sabine-Neches Waterway. Lastly, we propose revising an existing
Sabine Bank fairway anchorage name to more accurately describe its
location.
IV. Background
On July 22, 2011, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers recommended
deepening the Sabine-Neches Waterway (SNWW) from 40 feet to 48 feet and
extending the offshore channel by 11.5 nautical miles to reach deeper
water. The deepening project began in 2020 and is on-going at the time
of publication of this proposed rule. For more information about how
the joint U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Sabine-Neches Navigation
District deepening project will increase energy exports and deeper-
draft vessel traffic in the SNWW, see the website <a href="https://navigationdistrict.org/deepening-project">https://navigationdistrict.org/deepening-project</a>.
There are four existing fairway anchorages adjacent to the Sabine
Bank and Sabine Pass fairways described in 33 CFR 166.200(d)(13)(i)-
(iv). A fairway anchorage is a specific area, identified on a nautical
chart, where vessels may drop anchor and not interfere with other
transiting vessels. However, vessels with drafts deeper than 40 feet
are unable to use these fairway anchorages because of the insufficient
water depth in those fairway anchorage areas. Draft refers to the
vertical distance between the waterline and the lowest part of a ship's
hull or propellers or other appendages. In existing 33 CFR 166.105(b)
we define Fairway anchorage as ``an anchorage area contiguous to and
associated with a fairway, in which fixed structures may be permitted
within certain spacing limitations, as described for specific areas in
Subpart B.'' The Coast Guard has historically used fairway anchorages
adjacent to shipping safety fairways to promote the statutory goal of
promoting safe and efficient transit of vessel traffic to and from our
ports. The existing fairway anchorages and their relevant shipping
safety fairway are listed in section 166.200.
Currently, three fairway anchorages are available for use outside
the existing channel entrance. The relocation of the channel entrance
11.5 nautical miles into deeper waters results in no fairway anchorages
available outside the channel entrance. Other facilities and
obstructions in the area, such as oil rigs, submerged pipelines, and
shoals (bottom features dangerous to navigation), also limit the
ability of deeper-draft vessels to anchor safely. Local pilots have
requested Coast Guard assistance in establishing these fairway
anchorages for vessels with drafts exceeding 40 feet and whose
operators are unfamiliar with the area. The new proposed deeper
anchorages will be outside of this safe water mark. In addition to
deeper-draft vessels, some companies require a pilot when transiting
the channel. Therefore, we anticipate that a majority of vessels
capable of anchoring in the existing fairway anchorages would,
nevertheless, use these proposed new fairway anchorages to reduce risk
consistent with safety management systems.
V. Discussion of Proposed Rule
In January 2021, the Sabine Pilots Association (licensed
professional mariners charged with the safe navigation of vessels on
the SNWW) requested that the Coast Guard create two new fairway
anchorages, adjacent to the existing safety fairway, to accommodate
deep-draft vessels that are unable to use existing fairway anchorages.
In response, we propose putting the fairway anchorages approximately 28
nautical miles south-southeast of Sabine Pass, TX, on the east and west
sides of the exiting Sabine Bank approach fairway. We would establish
the fairway anchorages in water deep enough for deeper-draft vessels.
The combined surface area of the two proposed fairway anchorages would
be approximately 37.1 square statute miles. Tables 1 and 2 show the
proposed fairway anchorages coordinates (World Geodetic System 1984
(WGS84)). The proposed Sabine Bank Approach (East) Anchorage Area would
include the area enclosed by rhumb lines joining points at:
Table 1--The Proposed Sabine Bank Approach (East) Anchorage Area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Latitude north Longitude west
------------------------------------------------------------------------
29[deg]09'55'' 93[deg]38'50''
29[deg]09'55'' 93[deg]37'34''
29[deg]08'46'' 93[deg]37'34''
29[deg]04'45'' 93[deg]33'58''
29[deg]03'53'' 93[deg]35'07''
29[deg]08'11'' 93[deg]38'50''
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The coordinates (WGS84) for the proposed Sabine Bank Approach
(West) Anchorage Area would include the area
[[Page 7192]]
enclosed by rhumb lines joining points at:
Table 2--The Proposed Sabine Bank Approach (West) Anchorage Area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Latitude north Longitude west
------------------------------------------------------------------------
29[deg]13'29'' 93[deg]42'57''
29[deg]13'29'' 93[deg]41'06''
29[deg]07'31'' 93[deg]41'06''
29[deg]03'36'' 93[deg]37'44''
29[deg]02'09'' 93[deg]39'30''
29[deg]06'11'' 93[deg]42'57''
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Establishing these fairway anchorages would provide unobstructed
anchorage areas adjacent to existing shipping safety fairways. The
fairway anchorages play a crucial role in advancing the goal of
facilitating commerce by enhancing the safety, efficiency, and
predictability of maritime operations. By creating defined fairway
anchorages, vessels can wait for clearance or better weather conditions
without blocking important routes or causing congestion. This enhances
the flow of traffic and helps maintain the schedule of cargo delivery,
reducing delays in the global supply chain. The time saved by reducing
the need for vessels to maneuver around unsuitable anchorage areas or
wait in less organized spaces directly supports faster, more
predictable commerce.
If adopted, the fairway anchorages would be documented on
navigational charts maintained by other agencies. The charts would be
the primary way to identify the fairway anchorages' locations. There
are currently no plans to place physical markers or buoys around the
proposed fairway anchorages. None of the other Gulf of America fairways
anchorages are marked with physical aids either, but they are usually
marked on nautical charts. Additional fairway anchorages adjacent to
the fairways would reduce congestion in the waterway by providing more
space for vessel berths, thereby clarifying vessel maneuver protocols
in the SNWW. These proposed fairway anchorages, which we propose
codifying in 33 CFR 166.200(d)(13)(v) and (vi), would provide adequate
anchorage areas for deep-draft vessels that are unable to use the
existing, more shallow fairway anchorages. The additional designated
areas to anchor would enhance safe vessel movements for arriving and
departing vessels because it creates safe areas where vessels should
await port entry.
Relatedly, the Coast Guard published a notice on March 1, 2023 to
announce a Port Access Route Study titled ``Port Access Route Study:
Approaches to Galveston Bay and Sabine Pass, Texas and Calcasieu Pass,
Louisiana'' at 88 FR 12966. The notice and related material are in
docket USCG-2023-0063 on <a href="http://regulations.gov">regulations.gov</a>. Before establishing or
adjusting fairways or TSSs, the Coast Guard must conduct a Port Access
Route Study, a study of potential traffic density and the need for safe
access routes for vessels. Through the study process, the Coast Guard
coordinated with Federal, State, Tribal, and foreign state agencies and
considered the views of maritime community representatives,
environmental groups, and other stakeholders. The primary purpose of
the coordination was, to the extent practicable, to reconcile the need
for safe access routes with other reasonable waterway uses such as
anchorages, construction, operation of energy facilities, marine
sanctuary operations, commercial and recreational activities, and other
uses. While the PARS is not required for establishing the fairways
anchorage areas, the PARS is considering the need for anchorage areas.
We will post the final report to the docket USCG-2023-0063 when we
issue it.
Establishing two new fairway anchorages would limit construction of
fixtures and obstructions within the designated areas by way of spacing
restrictions. Structures may be placed within an area designated as a
fairway anchorage, but they must meet existing spacing regulations in
Sec. 166.200(c)(1) for structures within fairway anchorages.
Specifically, the center of a structure must be at least 2 nautical
miles from the center of any existing structure. However, if a drilling
or production complex extends more than 500 yards from the center, a
new structure cannot be erected closer than 2 nautical miles from the
outer limit of the complex per existing Sec. 166.200(c)(4). There are
no existing structures or obstructions in the proposed fairway
anchorages at the time of publication of this proposed rule. As the
federal government's waterway navigation safety expert, the Coast Guard
reviews all offshore construction proposals through the Navigation
Safety Risk Assessment process. The assessment ensures permitting
agencies are advised of potential impacts to navigational safety and
recommendations to mitigate or eliminate hazards to navigation. The
Coast Guard works closely with NOAA to ensure charting of structures,
obstructions, and hazards to navigation.
In addition, we propose to update the name of an existing Sabine
Bank Offshore fairway anchorage, as described in existing 33 CFR
166.200(d)(13)(ii). We propose to change the name from ``Sabine Bank
Offshore (North) Anchorage Area'' to ``Sabine Bank Offshore (West)
Anchorage Area.'' ``West'' is a more accurate description of its
location relative to the fairway. This proposed change to the fairway
anchorage area name would not have any impact on the public.
VI. Regulatory Analyses
We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and Executive orders related to rulemaking. A summary of our analyses
based on these statutes or Executive orders follows.
A. Regulatory Planning and Review
Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory Planning and 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. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of
quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing
rules, and of promoting flexibility. Executive Order 14192 (Unleashing
Prosperity Through Deregulation) directs agencies to significantly
reduce the private expenditures required to comply with Federal
regulations and provides that ``any new incremental costs associated
with new regulations shall, to the extent permitted by law, be offset
by the elimination of existing costs associated with at least 10 prior
regulations.''
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not designated this
rule a ``significant regulatory action'' under section 3(f) of
Executive Order 12866.. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it.
This proposed rule, if finalized as proposed, is expected to be an
Executive Order 14192 deregulatory action.
Currently, there are four existing fairway anchorages that are not
deep enough to be used by vessels with drafts exceeding 40 feet that
will transit the SNWW southeast of Sabine Pass, TX. As a result, these
vessels may drift, loiter, or anchor in random, unmarked locations. The
Coast Guard is proposing to establish two new fairway anchorages in
this area, adjacent to the existing safety fairway, to allow vessels
with deeper drafts to anchor. The creation of the two new fairway
anchorages would benefit vessel owners and operators who transit this
area because it would help in the movement of vessels, promote safe
anchoring, and alleviate congestion in the waterway. We do not expect
this proposed rule to impose any additional
[[Page 7193]]
costs, other than minimal regulatory costs, on vessel owners and
operators who transit this waterway or on the Federal Government. Table
3 provides a summary of the impacts of this proposed rule.
Table 3--Summary of Impacts of the Proposed Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Summary
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicability.......................... 33 CFR 166.200.
Affected Population.................... Based on the most recent Port
Arthur Vessel Traffic Service
(VTS) data, the annual number
of affected vessels would be
approximately:
U.S.-flagged deep draft
vessels: 10.
Foreign-flagged deep draft
vessels: 320.
Total: 330 unique vessels.
In total, from 2021-2023,
approximately 990 unique deep-
draft vessels with drafts
greater than 40 feet and less
than 48 feet, transited the
SNWW. These vessels would be
able to use the two new
fairway anchorages with this
proposed rule.
Cost Savings........................... Reduces fuel costs for vessels
that anchor as opposed to
drifting or loitering.
U.S. cost savings:
Total discounted cost savings:
$1.3 million.
Annualized cost savings:
$180,125.
Foreign cost savings:
Total discounted cost savings:
$14.8 million.
Annualized cost savings: $2.1
million.
Costs.................................. There would be minimal
unquantified costs to industry
or the Federal Government
associated with documenting
and familiarizing chart
locations, as well as changing
existing anchorage names.
Additionally, the use of these
two new fairway anchorages by
the owners or operators of
deep-draft vessels would be
optional.
Unquantified Benefits.................. <bullet> Provides locations for
anchorage of deep-draft
vessels.\1\
...............................
<bullet> Helps transit of deep-
draft vessels awaiting entry
to a port or facility in the
SNWW.
<bullet> Promotes safe
navigation and alleviates
congestion in the waterway.\2\
<bullet> Introduces order and
predictability into traffic
management.
<bullet> Reduces transit time
for Coast Guard members
conducting boardings. Note:
The Coast Guard requires
vessels to be anchored during
boardings.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 4 presents the impacts of the proposed changes to 33 CFR part
166.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Charts and vessel density maps of the area depicting
existing and proposed fairway anchorages are available in the docket
and via links in this document.
\2\ See the USACE report: Final Feasibility Report for Sabine-
Neches Waterway Channel Improvement Project, Southeast Texas and
Southwest Louisiana.
Table 4--Regulatory Changes of the Proposed Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Type of change Proposed changes Affected CFR parts Economic impact
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Update the name of an existing Sabine Replacing the word 33 CFR No impact; editorial.
Bank Offshore fairway anchorage. ``North'' with 166.200(d)(13)(ii).
``West''.
Specifically, changing
the name from ``Sabine
Bank Offshore (North)
Anchorage Area'' to
``Sabine Bank Offshore
(West) Anchorage
Area''.
Sabine Bank Approach (East and West) Designating two new 33 CFR Unquantified benefit of
Anchorage Area. fairway anchorages off 166.200(d)(13)(v)-(vi). enhancing navigational
the Texas and safety of deep-draft
Louisiana coastline vessels that transit
for vessels with deep the SNWW.
drafts.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Affected Population
For this proposed rule, we obtained the affected population of
vessels that would benefit from these two new fairway anchorages from
the Port Arthur VTS database and subject matter experts in the Coast
Guard Office of Navigation Services. The population of vessels that
transit the SNWW is comprised of U.S. and foreign-flagged vessels.
Table 5 and 6 provide a breakdown of the affected U.S. and foreign
population of vessels.
Approximately 94 percent of deep-draft vessels are tank vessels,
such as petroleum and chemical tank ships, and gas carriers, which
carry liquefied hazardous gas (LHG) and liquefied natural gas (LNG).
Based on the most recent information as of April 2024, and using data
over a 3-year period from 2021 to 2023, the total number of U.S.
affected vessels that transit annually the SNWW on average is
approximately 10,
[[Page 7194]]
making approximately 100 trips (or 10 trips per vessel) annually.\3\
See Table 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Based on vessel transit data from the Port Arthur VTS
database, there are no small commercial vessels, fishing vessels, or
recreational vessels that transit the SNWW.
Table 5--Affected U.S.-Flagged Vessel Population by 46 CFR Subchapter
------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S.-flagged vessels calling on SNWW
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
46 CFR inspection subchapter Vessels Trips
------------------------------------------------------------------------
D--Tank Vessels...................... 11 94
I--Cargo and Miscellaneous Vessels... 1 2
O--Certain Bulk Dangerous Cargoes.... .................... ...........
OD--Combination of O & D............. 17 204
Unspecified.......................... 2 2
----------------------------------
Total U.S.-flagged deep draft 31 302
vessels transiting SNWW over 3-
year period.....................
Average annual U.S.-flagged deep 10 100
draft vessels transiting SNWW.......
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: During the 3-year data period, we did not identify any other U.S.-
flagged vessels from other subchapters in 46 CFR that transited the
SNWW.
Using the same dataset over a 3-year period from 2021 to 2023, the
total number of foreign-flagged vessels that transit the SNWW on
average is approximately 320, making approximately 1,035 trips annually
(see Table 6).
Table 6--Affected Foreign-Flagged Vessel Population by 46 CFR Subchapter
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Foreign-flagged vessels calling on SNWW
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Foreign-flagged
Inspection subchapter vessels Trips
------------------------------------------------------------------------
D--Tank Vessels...................... 295 829
I--Cargo and Miscellaneous Vessels... 30 61
O--Certain Bulk Dangerous Cargoes.... 189 1,288
OD--Combination of O & D............. 241 570
Unspecified.......................... 204 358
----------------------------------
Total............................ 959 3,106
Average annual foreign-flagged deep 320 1,035
draft vessels transiting SNWW.......
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: During the 3-year data period, we did not identify any other
foreign-flagged vessels from other subchapters in 46 CFR that
transited the SNWW.
The use of these two proposed new fairway anchorages would be
voluntary, and any vessel could anchor in these areas; however, these
fairway anchorages would be intended primarily for use by deep-draft
vessels. The number of U.S.-flagged vessels with drafts greater than 40
feet that call on the SNWW and would be able to use these two new
fairway anchorages is an annual average of approximately 10 (see Table
7).
Table 7--Affected U.S.-Flagged Vessels by Design Draft
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Design draft range Number of
46 CFR inspection subchapter (feet) vessels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
D--Tank Vessels...................... [40.05-47.62] 12
I--Cargo and Miscellaneous Vessels... [41.06-42.05] 2
OD--Combination of O & D............. [40.08-46.61] 17
----------------------------------
Total over 3-year period......... .................... 31
Average Annual....................... .................... 10
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost Savings of the Proposed Rule
The cost savings of the proposed rule to owners and operators of
U.S.-flagged vessels is based on the quantified fuel that would be
saved with the new anchorage areas. We expect this proposed rule to
generate cost savings from the reduction of time for U.S.-flagged deep
draft vessels that call on the SNWW. Based on the information obtained
from the Sabine Pilots \4\ in the SNWW, vessel owners and operators
would save approximately 30 minutes to 2 hours from maneuvering
offshore while waiting to reach the safe water mark before they enter
the new anchorage areas in the SNWW. There may be some occurrences
during the year where vessels may wait longer outside of the safe water
mark, but the estimates provided to us would be the
[[Page 7195]]
typical waiting times without the new anchorage areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The Coast Guard held a videoconference with the Sabine
Pilots Association on June 12, 2025.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The establishment of these anchorages would reduce vessel fuel
consumption because vessels would no longer wait or drift offshore
using their main engines. As a result, owners and operators of these
vessels would save fuel and fuel costs by directly entering the new
anchorage areas and not waiting offshore. Once in the anchorage areas,
vessels would revert to using generator power as they would do
normally. Of the 302 unique U.S.-flagged vessels that called on the
SNWW in the past 3 years, 298 of them were Panamax-class vessels.\5\
Because Panamax vessels comprise nearly the entire population of U.S.-
flagged vessels in this proposed rule, we will need to obtain the fuel
type for this vessel class for the purpose of this cost savings
analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ A Panamax vessel is a ship designed to fit within the size
restrictions of the original Panama Canal locks. They are typically
medium sized vessels with beams that do not exceed 106-feet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The average fuel consumption of Panamax class vessels is between
approximately 30 to 35 metric tons per day.\6\ Using data from U.S.
Energy Information Administration (EIA), the cost of ULSFO is $1,029
per metric ton.\7\ Using a 24-hour day and an average of 33 metric tons
of fuel used in a day, a Panamax class vessel would use approximately
1.4 metric tons of fuel an hour (33 metric tons / 24 hours). Therefore,
the fuel cost for a Panamax class vessel that would wait offshore
without the benefit of the new anchorage areas would be approximately
$1,441($1,029 x 1.4) per hour, rounded. Using a low estimate of 30
minutes of waiting time, the fuel cost for a Panamax class vessel would
be approximately $721, rounded. Using a high estimate of 2 hours, the
fuel cost for a Panamax class vessel would be approximately $2,884,
rounded. For the purpose of this analysis, we will use an average time
of 1.25 hours or 75 minutes for our cost savings calculations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Panamax class vessels calling on the SNWW use ultra-low
sulfur fuel oil (ULSFO) <a href="https://www.shipuniverse.com/big-5-breakdown-size-fuel-burn-and-carrying-capacity/">https://www.shipuniverse.com/big-5-breakdown-size-fuel-burn-and-carrying-capacity/</a>.
\7\ Using year 2024 data, the cost per gallon of ultra-low
sulfur fuel oil is $3.50. There is approximately 294 gallons per
metric ton. Thus, the price of ULSFO per metric ton is approximately
$1,029 (294 gallons x $3.50).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Approximately 10 unique U.S.-flagged vessels call on SNWW every
year. Based on Port Arthur VTS data, these 10 vessels make
approximately 10 trips, rounded, each to the SNWW, or 100 total trips
annually. Therefore, the fuel costs and subsequent fuel cost savings
would be a function of the number of trips made by U.S.-flagged
vessels. For the low estimate of 30 minutes of waiting time offshore
without the new anchorage areas and using approximately 100 trips
annually, the total time savings would be approximately 3,000 (30
minutes per trip x 100 trips) minutes or 50 hours annually. Using fuel
cost per hour that we derived previously, the total undiscounted fuel
cost savings for U.S.-flagged vessels that call on the SNWW would be
approximately $72,050 annually (50 hours x $1,441/hour). Similarly, for
the high estimate of 2 hours and using the same number of trips, the
total time savings for the U.S.-flagged vessels that call on the SNWW
would be approximately 12,000 minutes (120 minutes per trip x 100
trips) or approximately 200 hours annually. The total undiscounted fuel
cost savings for U.S.-flagged vessels that call on SNWW would be
approximately $288,200 annually (200 hours x $1,441/hour). Because we
are using the average time estimate of 75 minutes (1.25 hours), the
average annual undiscounted cost savings of this proposed rule U.S.-
flagged vessel owners and operators would be approximately $180,125.
See table 8.
Table 8--Annual Fuel Cost Savings From Fuel for Affected U.S.-Flagged Vessels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Time saved (hours ULSFO cost Total annual
Time saved (hour) Trips annually) (per hour) ULSFO Cost
(A) (B) (C) = (A) x (B) (D) (E) = (C) x
(D)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.5 (low estimate)................................ 100 50 $1,441 $72,050
2 (high estimate)................................. 100 200 1,441 288,200
1.25 (Average )................................... 100 125 1,441 180,125
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Totals may not add due to independent rounding.
Based on our analysis, we expect this proposed rule to generate
cost savings for industry, or vessel owners and operators who transit
the SNWW area, or shoreside facilities that receive cargo from deeper-
draft vessels that would use the two new fairway anchorages. Table 9
presents the total quantified fuel cost savings to U.S.-flagged vessel
owners and operators from the adoption of these two new anchorages in
the SNWW. We estimate the total present value or discounted fuel cost
savings to owners and operators of U.S.-flagged vessels over a 10-year
period of analysis to be between $1.3 and $1.5 million, at 7- and 3-
percent discount rates, respectively. We estimate the annualized fuel
cost savings to owners and operators of U.S.-flagged vessels to be
about $180,125 at each discount rate. We estimate that this rule
generates $157,328 in net annualized fuel cost savings to owners and
operators of U.S.-flagged vessels at a 7-percent discount rate,
discounted relative to year 2024, over a perpetual time horizon.
Table 9--Net Present Value of Fuel Cost Savings for Owners and Operators of U.S.-Flagged Vessels Resulting From
New Anchorages in SNWW
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost savings for
Year industry 7% Discount rate 3% Discount rate
(undiscounted)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1..................................................... $180,125 $168,341 $174,879
2..................................................... 180,125 157,328 169,785
3..................................................... 180,125 147,036 164,840
4..................................................... 180,125 137,417 160,039
[[Page 7196]]
5..................................................... 180,125 128,427 155,377
6..................................................... 180,125 120,025 150,852
7..................................................... 180,125 112,173 146,458
8..................................................... 180,125 104,834 142,192
9..................................................... 180,125 97,976 138,051
10.................................................... 180,125 91,566 134,030
---------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................. 1,801,250 1,265,123 1,536,503
Annualized........................................ ................ 180,125 180,125
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Totals may not add due to independent rounding.
This proposed rule would also generate cost savings for owners and
operators of foreign-flagged vessels. The quantified fuel cost savings
stem from the reduction of time for foreign flagged deep draft vessels
that call on the SNWW. Following the same methodology that we used for
U.S.-flagged vessels and using the average of time saved (1.25 hours)
from the adoption of these anchorages and ULSFO cost of $1,029 per
metric ton. For example, a Suezmax class vessel would consume
approximately 2.4 metric tons of fuel per hour (58 metric tons / 24
hours). Therefore, the fuel cost for a Suezmax class vessel that would
wait offshore without the benefit of the new anchorage areas would be
approximately $2,470 per hour (2.4 metric tons x $1,029 ULSFO cost per
metric tons). Multiplying this by the time saved of 103 hours (1.25
average hours saved x 82 trips by Suezmax vessels) would generate
approximately $254,410 in quantified fuel savings to foreign-flagged
Suezmax vessels that transit the SNWW. Therefore, the total annual
quantified fuel cost savings (undiscounted) for all 4 classes of
foreign-flagged vessels that transit the SNWW is approximately $2.1
million. See Table 10.
Table 10--Annual Fuel Cost Savings for Affected Foreign-Flagged Vessels
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fuel consumption
Vessel class per day \8\ Trips Time saved (hours ULSFO cost Total annual
(metric tons) annually) (per hour) ULSFO cost
(A) (B) (C) = 1.25 hours x (B) (D) (E) = (C) x (D)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aframax...................................................... 38 519 649 $1,646 $1,068,254
Handymax..................................................... 28 16 20 1,235 24,700
Panamax...................................................... 33 418 523 1,441 753,643
Suezmax...................................................... 58 82 103 2,470 254,410
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.................................................... .................. 1,035 1,295 .............. 2,101,007
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Totals may not add due to independent rounding.
Table 11 presents the total quantified fuel cost savings to owners
and operators of foreign-flagged vessels from the adoption of these two
new anchorages in the SNWW. We estimate the total present value or
discounted fuel cost savings to owners and operators of foreign-flagged
vessels over a 10-year period of analysis to be between $14.8 and $18.0
million, at 7- and 3-percent discount rates, respectively. We estimate
the annualized fuel cost savings to owners and operators of foreign-
flagged vessels to be approximately $2.1 million at each discount rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ <a href="https://safe.menlosecurity.com/doc/docview/viewer/docN7AF4525FF665007fa9e3bae8c4687ef5ec9f143f73e6815ffea6ee8ab15119851c6c380ebd0b">https://safe.menlosecurity.com/doc/docview/viewer/docN7AF4525FF665007fa9e3bae8c4687ef5ec9f143f73e6815ffea6ee8ab15119851c6c380ebd0b</a>; <a href="https://safe.menlosecurity.com/doc/docview/viewer/docN7AF4525FF6658d501aae81d1fcb469b498b88f5609708f5a2ad14abd542f1b7b6fa1d2909569">https://safe.menlosecurity.com/doc/docview/viewer/docN7AF4525FF6658d501aae81d1fcb469b498b88f5609708f5a2ad14abd542f1b7b6fa1d2909569</a>; <a href="https://mycompassair.com/part-3-vessels/">https://mycompassair.com/part-3-vessels/</a>; accessed 07/
23/2025.
Table 11--Net Present Value of Fuel Cost Savings for Operators of Foreign Flagged Vessel Resulting From New
Anchorages in SNWW
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost savings for
Year industry 7% Discount 3% Discount
(undiscounted)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................................................. 2,101,007 $1,963,558 $2,039,813
2............................................................. 2,101,007 1,835,101 1,980,401
3............................................................. 2,101,007 1,715,048 1,922,719
4............................................................. 2,101,007 1,602,848 1,866,718
5............................................................. 2,101,007 1,497,989 1,812,347
6............................................................. 2,101,007 1,399,990 1,759,560
7............................................................. 2,101,007 1,308,402 1,708,311
[[Page 7197]]
8............................................................. 2,101,007 1,222,805 1,658,554
9............................................................. 2,101,007 1,142,809 1,610,247
10............................................................ 2,101,007 1,068,045 1,563,347
-------------------------------------------------
Total..................................................... 21,010,070 14,756,594 17,922,016
Annualized................................................ ................ 2,101,007 2,101,007
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Totals may not add due to independent rounding.
We request public comments on this preliminary analysis.
Unquantified Benefits of the Proposed Rule
This proposed rule would designate two new fairway anchorages to
accommodate vessels with deep drafts in the Sabine Bank and Sabine Pass
fairways. The use of the two proposed new fairway anchorages by U.S.-
flagged vessel owners and operators would be voluntary, and any vessel
owner or operator may anchor in these new areas. The establishment of
these two new fairway anchorages for vessels that transit the SNWW
would provide safe access to the adjacent fairways, manage vessel
activity, and help in secure anchoring and efficient movement of
vessels from the fairway anchorages to the pilot boarding area. Vessels
would utilize the fairway anchorages, as opposed to anchoring in
unregulated areas with pipelines, or transiting in and around the
highly trafficked safety fairways and energy production platforms.
Access to charted fairway anchorages would enhance navigational safety
by accounting for current and future growth of the marine
transportation system (MTS) in this area and alleviate congestion in
the SNWW, which may reduce the likelihood of a grounding, allision, or
collision incident. It also preserves an efficient flow of commerce.
Additionally, this proposed rule will increase the efficient
transportation of energy resources and advance our national energy
dominance.
Regulatory Alternatives Considered
Alternative 1: Increase the number of the proposed fairway
anchorages.
Under this alternative, the Coast Guard would establish three or
more new fairway anchorages. This alternative would not impose any new
regulatory costs on vessels owners and operators who transit this area.
We rejected this alternative because it would not generate the optimal
benefit for the marine industry. We want to designate the smallest area
necessary to accomplish the objective. We do not anticipate needing the
third fairway anchorage for the number of vessels transiting the area.
The Sabine Pilots Association, based on their extensive knowledge of
the use of and need for anchorages, determined and requested the
establishment of only two new fairway anchorages in the SNWW.
Alternative 2: Reduce the size of one or both proposed fairway
anchorages.
The Coast Guard considered a smaller, alternate fairway anchorage
B, which would reduce the proposed anchorage areas in size and depth by
approximately 25.1 percent. The Sabine Pilots Association provided this
size estimate to the Coast Guard based on an increase in the scope of
the anchor chain that would be needed as a result of an increase in the
depth of the water. We rejected this alternative because it would
provide less area for vessels to anchor and could create a marginal
increase in the risk of collisions, allisions, and groundings when
compared to the preferred alternative. This alternative would not
impose any new regulatory costs on vessels owners and operators who
transit this area. It would also not provide any additional benefits to
vessel owners and operators because this anchorage area would be
smaller in size and could increase congestion and the likelihood of
incidents in this area, as opposed to the preferred alternative.
Alternative 3: Preferred Alternative.
With this alternative, the Coast Guard would designate two new
fairway anchorages for use by vessel owners and operators in the Sabine
Bank and Sabine Pass fairways. This is the preferred alternative
because it would allow vessels with drafts greater than 40 feet to
anchor. These vessels are currently unable to use the existing fairway
anchorages because their drafts are deeper than the existing anchorages
allow. This alternative provides designated locations for anchorage of
deep-draft vessels, which promotes safe navigation for current and
future growth of the MTS and alleviates congestion in the SNWW. This
alternative would not impose any regulatory costs on vessels owners and
operators who transit this area.
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.
As this rule imposes no regulatory costs on the affected
population, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this
proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. 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 its
provisions or options for compliance, please call or email the person
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
[[Page 7198]]
proposed rule. The Coast Guard will not retaliate 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.
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. It is also well settled
that Congress gave the Coast Guard the authority to establish vessel
movement restrictions in 46 U.S.C. 70001 and 70003. The proposed
fairways would be located offshore in waters outside of State and local
jurisdiction. The use of the new fairway anchorages would be voluntary
for vessel operators. They would be available to use by any vessel
transiting the area. Establishing the voluntary fairway anchorages
would not interfere with other state requirements that apply to these
vessels. Therefore, this proposed rule is consistent with the
fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described
in Executive Order 13132.
While it is well settled that States may not regulate in categories
in which Congress intended the Coast Guard to be the sole source of a
vessel's obligations, 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 potential 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 does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments) because it would not 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.
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 it is not a
``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is
not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy.
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 (for example,
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 Executive Order 12114,
Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions, as well as
Department of Homeland Security's National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) Procedures, Management Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, Associated
Implementing Instructions, and Environmental Planning Policy, COMDTINST
5090.1 (series), and the Environmental Planning Implementing Procedures
for COMDTINST 5090.1 Environmental Planning Policy (Feb. 2025). We have
made a preliminary determination that this proposed rule would not
significantly harm the environment.
The Coast Guard is conducting an environmental analysis pursuant to
Executive Order 12114. NEPA does not apply to extraterritorial
activities or decisions, which means agency activities or decisions
with effects located entirely outside of the jurisdiction of the United
States. 42 U.S.C. 4336e(10)(B)(vi).
[[Page 7199]]
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard is
proposing to amend 33 CFR part 166 as follows:
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 166
Anchorage grounds, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Waterways.
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, 70034; Department of
Homeland Security Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.4.
0
2. Amend Sec. 166.200 by:
0
a. In the heading to paragraph (d)(13)(ii), removing the text
``(North)'' and adding, in its place, the text ``(West)''; and
0
b. Adding new paragraphs (d)(13)(v) and (vi) to read as follows:
Sec. 166.200 Shipping safety fairways and anchorages areas, Gulf of
America.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(13) * * *
(v) Sabine Bank Approach (East) Anchorage Area. The area enclosed
by rhumb lines joining points at:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Latitude North Longitude West
------------------------------------------------------------------------
29[deg]09'55'' 93[deg]38'50''
29[deg]09'55'' 93[deg]37'34''
29[deg]08'46'' 93[deg]37'34''
29[deg]04'45'' 93[deg]33'58''
29[deg]03'53'' 93[deg]35'07''
29[deg]08'11'' 93[deg]38'50''
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(vi) Sabine Bank Approach (West) Anchorage Area. The area enclosed
by rhumb lines joining points at:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Latitude North Longitude West
------------------------------------------------------------------------
29[deg]13'29''............................ 93[deg]42'57''
29[deg]13'29''............................ 93[deg]41'06''
29[deg]07'31''............................ 93[deg]41'06''
29[deg]03'36''............................ 93[deg]37'44''
29[deg]02'09''............................ 93[deg]39'30''
29[deg]06'11''............................ 93[deg]42'57''
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
Dated: February 11, 2026.
Robert C. Compher,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Assistant Commandant for Prevention
Policy.
[FR Doc. 2026-03044 Filed 2-13-26; 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 February 17, 2026.
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.