[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 [www.gpo.gov]
[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 
www.regulations.gov. 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 www.regulations.gov. To do so, go 
to www.regulations.gov, 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 www.regulations.gov, 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 www.regulations.gov 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 www.regulations.gov 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 https://www.navcen.uscg.gov/port-access-route-study-reports.
    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 https://www.regulations.gov/docket/USCG-2019-0279/document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\ https://media.defense.gov/2019/Jul/10/2002155400/-1/-1/0/CI_16003_2B.PDF. 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 
www.regulations.gov or the Coast Guard Navigation Center's website at 
https://www.navcen.uscg.gov/port-access-route-study-reports. 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: https://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Safety/Pages/ShipsRouteing.aspx. 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; https://journals.lib.unb.ca/index.php/ihr/article/download/24035/27820/36382. 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 
https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/viewEO12866Meeting?viewRule=false&rin=1625-AC57&meetingId=225623&acronym=1625-DHS/USCG (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 https://www.navcen.uscg.gov/port-access-route-study-reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 https://www.regulations.gov/docket/USCG-2019-0279. 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: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/03/29/fact-sheet-biden-administration-jumpstarts-offshore-wind-energy-projects-to-create-jobs/. 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, https://usatrade.census.gov/ 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, https://cleanpower.org/resources/offshore-wind-market-report-2023/. Last 
accessed May 23, 2023.
    \24\ Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Lease and Grant 
Information. Available at: https://www.boem.gov/renewable-energy/lease-and-grant-information. 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\ https://www.boem.gov/renewable-energy/state-activities/central-atlantic. Last accessed May 23, 2023.
    \26\ https://www.boem.gov/renewable-energy/state-activities/maine/gulf-maine. 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 (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316460284_Assessing_the_impacts_to_vessel_traffic_from_offshore_wind_farms_in_the_Thames_Estuary). 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 https://hdl.handle.net/10419/267197. 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; https://discomap.eea.europa.eu/map/Data/Milieu/OURCOAST_191_DE/OURCOAST_191_DE_Doc1_OffshoreWindfarm.pdf. 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 https://doi.org/10.17226/26430. 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 
https://www.boem.gov/renewable-energy/lease-and-grant-information. 
Last accessed May 23, 2023
    \34\ Reference USA U.S. Business Research, https://www.referenceusagov.com/. Last accessed May 23, 2023.
    \35\ U.S. Small Business Administration Table of Size Standards, 
https://www.sba.gov/document/support-table-size-standards. Last 
accessed May 23, 2023. PDF Table link: 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.

                                            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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------


Datum: WGS 84

    (12) Chesapeake Bay approach Connector-North Fairway. The area 
enclosed by rhumb lines, joining points at:

                    Table 1 to Sec.   166.500(b)(12)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              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
------------------------------------------------------------------------


Datum: WGS 84

    (13) Chesapeake Bay Approach Connector--South Fairway. The area 
enclosed by rhumb lines, joining points at:

                    Table 1 to Sec.   166.500(b)(13)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Latitude                             Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
36[deg]49'18'' N                      75[deg]35'28'' W
36[deg]49'18'' N                      74[deg]34'41'' W
36[deg]40'21'' 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------


Datum: WGS 84

    (14) Hatteras to Chesapeake Bay Offshore Fairway. The area enclosed 
by rhumb lines, joining points at:

                    Table 1 to Sec.   166.500(b)(14)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              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
------------------------------------------------------------------------


Datum: WGS 84

    (15) Hatteras to Chesapeake Bay Nearshore Fairway. The area 
enclosed by rhumb lines, joining points at:

                    Table 1 to Sec.   166.500(b)(15)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              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
------------------------------------------------------------------------


Datum: WGS 84

    (16) St. Lucie to Hatteras Fairway. The area enclosed by rhumb 
lines, joining points at:

                    Table 1 to Sec.   166.500(b)(16)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              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

[[Page 3612]]

 
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------


Datum: WGS 84

    (17) Beaufort Inlet Connector Fairway. The area enclosed by rhumb 
lines, joining points at:

                    Table 1 to Sec.   166.500(b)(17)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              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
------------------------------------------------------------------------


Datum: WGS 84

    (18) Cape Fear River Southeastern approach Connector Fairway. The 
area enclosed by rhumb lines, joining points at:

                    Table 1 to Sec.   166.500(b)(18)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              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
------------------------------------------------------------------------


Datum: WGS 84

    (19) Cape Fear River Southwestern approach Connector Fairway. The 
area enclosed by rhumb lines, joining points at:

                    Table 1 to Sec.   166.500(b)(19)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              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
------------------------------------------------------------------------


Datum: WGS 84

PART 167--OFFSHORE TRAFFIC SEPARATION SCHEMES

0
3. The authority citation for part 167 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
4. Amend Sec.  167.151 by adding paragraphs (c) and (d) to read as 
follows.


Sec.  167.151  Off New York: Precautionary areas.

* * * * *
    (c) A precautionary area is established as follows: from 
39[deg]42.92' N, 73[deg]54.53' W; then northerly to 39[deg]53.17' N, 
73[deg]53.35' W; then northeasterly to 39[deg]57.63' N, 73[deg]40.41' 
W; then southeasterly to 39[deg]48.35' N, 73[deg]38.28' W; then 
southwesterly to 39[deg]42.92' N, 73[deg]54.53' W.


Datum: WGS 84

    (d) A precautionary area is established as follows: from 
40[deg]01.53' N, 72[deg]58.88' W; then southwesterly to 39[deg]55.23' 
N, 73[deg]17.71' W; then northwesterly to 40[deg]02.41' N, 
73[deg]26.55' W; then northeasterly to 40[deg]09.02' N, 73[deg]10.82' 
W; then southeasterly to 40[deg]01.53' N, 72[deg]58.88' W.


Datum: WGS 84

0
5. Revise Sec.  167.171 to read as follows:


Sec.  167.171  Off Delaware Bay: Eastern approach.

    (a) A separation zone is established bounded by a line connecting 
the following geographic positions:

                      Table 1 to Sec.   167.171(a)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              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
------------------------------------------------------------------------


Datum: WGS 84

    (b) A traffic lane for westbound traffic is established between the 
separation zone and a line connecting the following geographic 
positions:

                      Table 1 to Sec.   167.171(b)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Latitude                             Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
38[deg]49.80' N                       74[deg]34.60' W
38[deg]49.80' N                       74[deg]33.91' W
------------------------------------------------------------------------


Datum: WGS 84

    (c) A traffic lane for eastbound traffic is established between the 
separation zone and a line connecting the following geographic 
positions:

                      Table 1 to Sec.   167.171(c)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Latitude                             Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
38[deg]44.45' N                       74[deg]33.32' W
38[deg]44.45' N                       74[deg]34.35' W
------------------------------------------------------------------------


Datum: WGS 84

    (d) A separation zone is established bound by a line connecting the 
following geographic positions:

                      Table 1 to Sec.   167.171(d)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              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
------------------------------------------------------------------------


Datum: WGS 84

    (e) A traffic lane for westbound traffic is established between the 
separation zone and a line connecting the following geographic 
positions:

                      Table 1 to Sec.   167.171(e)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Latitude                             Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
38[deg]49.79' N                       74[deg]28.74' W
38[deg]49.77' N                       74[deg]12.26' W
------------------------------------------------------------------------


Datum: WGS 84

    (f) A traffic lane for eastbound traffic is established between the 
separation zone and a line connecting the following geographic 
positions

                      Table 1 to Sec.   167.171(f)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Latitude                             Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
38[deg]44.44' N                       74[deg]28.15' W
38[deg]44.43' N                       74[deg]12.55' W
------------------------------------------------------------------------


Datum: WGS 84

0
6. Revise Sec.  167.172 to read as follows:


Sec.  167.172  Off Delaware Bay: Southeastern approach.

    (a) A separation zone is established bounded by a line connecting 
the following geographic positions:

                      Table 1 to Sec.   167.172(a)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              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
------------------------------------------------------------------------


Datum: WGS 84

    (b) A traffic lane for north-westbound traffic is established 
between separation zone and a line connecting the following geographic 
positions:

                      Table 1 to Sec.   167.172(b)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Latitude                             Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
38[deg]28.80' N                       74[deg]39.30' W
38[deg]19.72' N                       74[deg]30.63' W
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 3613]]


Datum: WGS 84

    (c) A traffic lane for south-eastbound traffic is established 
between the separation zone and a line connecting the following 
geographic positions:

                      Table 1 to Sec.   167.172(c)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Latitude                             Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
38[deg]15.80' N                       74[deg]34.75' W
38[deg]25.78' N                       74[deg]44.28' W
------------------------------------------------------------------------


Datum: WGS 84

0
7. Revise Sec.  167.174 and its section heading to read as follows:


Sec.  167.174  Off Delaware Bay: Precautionary areas.

    (a) A precautionary area is established as follows: 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.


Datum: WGS 84.

    (b) A precautionary area is established as follows: from 
38[deg]49.80' N, 74[deg]33.91' W; then easterly to 38[deg]49.79' N, 
74[deg]28.74' W; then southerly to 38[deg]44.44' N, 74[deg]28.15' W; 
then westerly to 38[deg]44.45' N, 74[deg]33.32' W; then northerly to 
38[deg]49.80' N, 74[deg]33.91' W.

Datum: WGS 84.

    (c) A precautionary area is established with a radius of 5 nautical 
miles 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.

    (d) A precautionary area is established with a radius of 10 
nautical miles 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.


Sec.  167.200  [Amended]

0
8. Amend Sec.  167.200 paragraph (a) by:
0
a. After the text ``three parts:'', removing the word ``a'' and adding, 
in its place, the word ``two'';
0
b. Removing the word ``Area'' and adding, in its place, the word 
``Areas''; and
0
c. After the text ``167.202,'', adding the text ``and''.
0
9. Amend Sec.  167.201 by:
0
a. Redesignating the introductory text as paragraph (a);
0
b. Adding a title to Table 1 to Sec.  167.201(a); and
0
c. Adding paragraph (b).
    The additions read as follows:


Sec.  167.201  In the approaches to Chesapeake Bay: Precautionary 
areas.

    (a) * * *

                      Table 1 to Sec.   167.201(a)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (b) A precautionary area is established as follows: from 
36[deg]58.25' N, 75[deg]48.44' W; then easterly by an arc of 5 nautical 
miles 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 nautical miles 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.


Datum: WGS 849.

0
10. Amend Sec.  167.251 by:
0
a. Redesignating the introductory text as paragraph (a); and
0
b. Adding paragraph (b) to read as follows:


Sec.  167.251  In the approaches to the Cape Fear River: Precautionary 
area.

* * * * *
    (b) A precautionary area is established as follows: from 
33[deg]36.22' N, 078[deg]17.30' W; then easterly by an arc of 5.2 
nautical miles 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.


Datum: WGS 84.

    Dated: January 9, 2024.
Linda L. Fagan,
Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commandant.
[FR Doc. 2024-00757 Filed 1-18-24; 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>