Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 3587 

c. The recipient shall post in 

conspicuous places available to 

employees and beneficiaries in their 

predominant languages the notices to be 

provided by the Department of State 

regarding the nondiscrimination policy 

implemented in this award term. 

d. The recipient shall notify 

beneficiaries and prospective 

beneficiaries that the recipient is 

prohibited from discriminating on the 

basis of race, ethnicity, color, religion, 

sex, gender, sexual orientation, gender 

identity or expression, sex 

characteristics, pregnancy, national 

origin, disability, age, genetic 

information, indigeneity, marital status, 

parental status, political affiliation, or 

veteran’s status. The notice shall 

include information (telephone 

numbers, email addresses, and mailing 

addresses) necessary to contact the 

Department of State Inspector General’s 

Fraud, Waste, and Abuse hotline to 

report potential violations of this award 

term. 

e. The recipient shall take such action 

with respect to any subaward or 

contract as the Department of State may 

direct as a means of enforcing this 

award term, including terminating for 

noncompliance. 

f. The recipient shall: 

1. Notify its employees and agents of: 

i. The policy prohibiting 

discrimination, described in paragraph 

(a) of this award term; and 

ii. The actions that will be taken 

against employees or agents for 

violations of this policy. Such actions 

for employees may include, but are not 

limited to, removal from the award, 

reduction in benefits, or termination of 

employment; and 

2. Take appropriate action, up to and 

including termination, against 

employees, agents, or subrecipients that 

violate the policy in paragraph (a) of 

this clause. 

g. Notification. 

1. The recipient shall inform the 

Grants Officer, Grants Officer 

Representative, and the Department of 

State Inspector General immediately of: 

i. Any credible information it receives 

from any source (including host country 

law enforcement) that alleges an 

employee of the recipient, subrecipient 

entity, an employee of a subrecipient, or 

their agent has engaged in conduct that 

violates the policy in paragraph (a) of 

this award term; and 

ii. Any actions taken against an 

employee of the recipient, subrecipient 

entity, an employee of a subrecipient 

employee, or their agent pursuant to this 

award term. 

2. If the allegation may be associated 

with more than one award, the recipient 

shall inform the Grants Officer for the 

award with the highest dollar value. 

h. Remedies. In addition to other 

remedies available to the U.S. 

Government, the recipient’s failure to 

comply with the requirements of this 

award term may result in: 

1. Requiring the recipient to remove 

an employee or subrecipient employee 

from the performance of the award; 

2. Requiring the award recipient to 

terminate a subaward; 

3. Suspension of award payments 

until the recipient has taken appropriate 

remedial action; 

4. Declining to exercise available 

options under the award; 

5. Termination of the award for 

default or cause, in accordance with the 

Department of State Standard Terms 

and Conditions for Federal Awards; or 

6. Suspension or debarment. 

i. The recipient must insert this award 

term, modified as appropriate or 

necessary to identify the parties, 

including this paragraph, in all 

subawards under this award. 

(End of award term) 

§ 602.50 Referral. 

A Department official will inform the 

Department’s suspension and 

debarment official if an award is 

terminated based on a violation of a 

prohibition contained in the award term 

under § 602.40. 

Kevin E. Bryant, 

Deputy Director, Office of Directives 

Management, Department of State. 

[FR Doc. 2024–01059 Filed 1–18–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710–24–P 

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 wellestablished 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 

Maureen.R.Kallgren@uscg.mil. 

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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
3588 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

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 

°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 

§ 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 3589 

1A 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). 

2These terms are defined in 33 CFR 166.105(a) 

and 33 CFR 167.5(b), respectively. 

3See limitations on such designations in 46 

U.S.C. 70003(b). 

4Navigation 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. 

5See 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. 

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

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-routestudy-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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
3590 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

6See pages i and 11, and Appendix VII (page 7) 

of the ACPARS. 

7See pages 12 and 16 of the ACPARS. 

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. 

9https://media.defense.gov/2019/Jul/10/ 

2002155400/-1/-1/0/CI_16003_2B.PDF. Last 

accessed March 1, 2023. 

interference with navigation and other 

rights and freedoms of other States as 

provided for this Convention.’’ 

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. 

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. 

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). 

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

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-routestudy-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: 

• Establish modified versions of the 

fairways proposed in the ANPRM. 

• Establish a New Jersey to New York 

Connector Fairway. 

• Establish a Hudson Canyon to 

Ambrose Southeastern Fairway, a 

Hudson Canyon to Ambrose Eastern 

Fairway, and a single Nantucket to 

Ambrose Fairway. 

• Widen the Long Island Fairway that 

was proposed in the ANPRM. 

• 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. 

• 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: 

• 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. 

• 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. 

• 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 3591 

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. 

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. 

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: 

• Establish modified versions of the 

fairways proposed in the ANPRM. 

• 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. 

• Establish additional precautionary 

areas where a wide variety of vessel 

traffic converges east of the offshore 

renewable energy installations (OREIs) 

under development. 

• 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. 

• 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. 

• Establish the New Jersey to New 

York Connector Fairway along the New 

Jersey coast and up into New York–New 

Jersey Harbor. 

• 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. 

• 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: 

• 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. 

• 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. 

• 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. 

• 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. 

• 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
3592 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

11Seventh Coast Guard District Southeast 

Atlantic Coast Port Access Route Study: Port 

Approaches and International Entry and Departure 

Transit Areas, found at USCG–2022–0347. 

12Ocean 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. 

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: 

• The IMO’s adoption of expanded 

precautionary area between the Eastern 

and Southern TSS approaches to 

Chesapeake Bay. 

• Modifications to fairways, as 

proposed in the ANPRM, to include: 

Æ 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. 

Æ Re-orienting the Cape Charles to 

Montauk Point Fairway to route closer 

to the Delmarva Peninsula. 

Æ 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: 

• 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. 

• 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. 

• 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: 

• Establish modified versions of the 

fairways proposed in the ANPRM. 

• Establish a precautionary area at the 

offshore terminus of the TSS in the 

approaches to the Cape Fear River. 

• 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: 

• 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

• 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. 

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. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 3593 

13For 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). 14 43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq. 16 85 FR 37034, June 19, 2020. 

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. 

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

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. 

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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
3594 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

17See 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. 

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 PostPanamax 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

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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 3595 

18See 15 CFR part 930. 19These terms are defined in 15 CFR 930.11(g). 

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. 

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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
3596 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

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 (°T)/246 °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°29′15′′ N 73°32′03′′ W 

40°31′02′′ N 73°35′17′′ W 

40°30′15′′ N 73°41′25′′ W 

40°31′33′′ N 73°42′23′′ W 

40°35′59′′ N 73°11′39′′ W 

41°06′31′′ N 71°30′24′′ W 

41°02′51′′ N 71°29′06′′ W 

40°48′05′′ N 71°59′27′′ W 

40°32′38′′ N 72°50′50′′ W 

40°32′12′′ N 73°11′28′′ W 

The proposed Nantucket to Ambrose 

Fairway would be approximately 150 

NM long in an approximate direction of 

090 °T/270 °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°32′20′′ N 73°04′55′′ W 

40°30′59′′ N 72°57′39′′ W 

40°34′07′′ N 70°19′26′′ W 

40°35′41′′ N 70°14′02′′ W 

40°22′38′′ N 70°13′34′′ W 

40°24′07′′ N 70°19′03′′ W 

40°20′57′′ N 72°58′22′′ W 

40°19′20′′ N 73°04′56′′ W 

The proposed Hudson Canyone to 

Ambrose Eastern Fairway would be 

approximately 35 NM long in an 

approximate direction of 090 °T/270 °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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 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°08′25′′ N 72°38′18′′ W 

40°08′25′′ N 72°27′34′′ W 

40°08′25′′ N 72°00′00′′ W 

40°03′25′′ N 72°00′00′′ W 

40°03′25′′ N 72°27′34′′ W 

40°03′25′′ N 72°53′15′′ W 

The proposed Hudson Canyon to 

Ambrose Southeastern approach 

Fairway would be 177 NM long in an 

approximate direction of 315 °T/135 °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°01′32′′ N 72°58′53′′ W 

40°00′20′′ N 72°56′59′′ W 

39°42′19′′ N 72°34′32′′ W 

39°24′19′′ N 72°12′12′′ W 

39°06′19′′ N 71°49′57′′ W 

38°48′19′′ N 71°27′49′′ W 

38°30′19′′ N 71°05′45′′ W 

38°12′19′′ N 70°43′48′′ W 

37°54′40′′ N 70°22′22′′ W 

37°45′55′′ N 70°38′53′′ W 

38°01′33′′ N 70°57′56′′ W 

38°19′33′′ N 71°19′57′′ W 

38°37′33′′ N 71°42′04′′ W 

38°55′33′′ N 72°04′17′′ W 

39°13′33′′ N 72°26′35′′ W 

39°31′33′′ N 72°48′59′′ W 

39°49′33′′ N 73°11′28′′ W 

39°55′14′′ N 73°17′43′′ W 

The proposed Barnegat to 

Narragansett Fairway would be 

approximately 135 NM long in an 

approximate direction of 063 °T/243 °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 °T/243 °T to 056 °T/236 °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°53′10′′ N 73°53′21′′ W 

39°57′38′′ N 73°40′25′′ W 

40°02′24′′ N 73°26′33′′ W 

40°09′1′′ N 73°10′49′′ W 

40°09′37′′ N 73°06′52′′ W 

40°48′5′′ N 71°59′27′′ W 

41°02′51′′ N 71°29′6′′ W 

41°02′11′′ N 71°18′13′′ W 

40°20′32′′ N 72°02′02′′ W 

40°01′32′′ N 72°58′53′′ W 

39°55′14′′ N 73°17′43′′ W 

39°48′21′′ N 73°38′17′′ W 

39°42′55′′ N 73°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°48′54′′ N 74°47′17′′ W 

38°48′19′′ N 74°55′24′′ W 

39°29′42′′ N 74°12′28′′ W 

39°47′36′′ N 74°00′38′′ W 

40°22′17′′ N 73°55′58′′ W 

40°20′30′′ N 73°49′38′′ W 

39°52′58′′ N 73°53′22′′ W 

39°42′55′′ N 73°54′32′′ W 

39°41′42′′ N 73°58′10′′ W 

TABLE 6—THE PROPOSED NEW JERSEY TO NEW YORK CONNECTOR

FAIRWAY—Continued 

Latitude Longitude 

39°35′15′′ N 74°02′59′′ W 

39°27′30′′ N 74°08′07′′ W 

39°06′13′′ N 74°30′01′′ W 

The proposed St. Lucie to New York 

Fairway would be approximately 790 

NM long in an approximate direction of 

030 °T/210 °T until off Cape Hatteras, 

NC, then it would turn to the north to 

approximately 003 °T/183 °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°17′51′′ N 74°26′02′′ W 

35°17′41′′ N 74°40′46′′ W 

34°33′21′′ N 74°52′32′′ W 

33°57′08′′ N 75°20′14′′ W 

32°49′16′′ N 76°06′42′′ W 

31°37′49′′ N 76°51′25′′ W 

29°36′06′′ N 78°06′19′′ W 

27°46′56′′ N 79°12′18′′ W 

27°51′00′′ N 79°21′20′′ W 

29°40′20′′ N 78°15′25′′ W 

31°42′04′′ N 77°00′43′′ W 

32°53′37′′ N 76°16′03′′ W 

34°01′48′′ N 75°29′30′′ W 

34°36′50′′ N 75°02′46′′ W 

35°19′31′′ N 74°51′32′′ W 

36°07′03′′ N 74°39′60′′ W 

37°59′00′′ N 74°25′56′′ W 

38°18′34′′ N 74°18′21′′ W 

38°41′08′′ N 74°09′36′′ W 

38°52′59′′ N 74°05′01′′ W 

39°15′49′′ N 73°56′09′′ W 

39°42′55′′ N 73°54′32′′ W 

39°45′42′′ N 73°46′12′′ W 

39°48′21′′ N 73°38′17′′ W 

39°45′42′′ N 73°37′40′′ W 

39°11′38′′ N 73°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 °T/175 °T, 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
3598 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

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°19′43′′ N 74°30′38′′ W 

38°44′27′′ N 74°33′19′′ W 

38°49′48′′ N 74°33′54′′ W 

39°01′14′′ N 74°35′09′′ W 

39°06′13′′ N 74°30′01′′ W 

39°01′41′′ N 74°30′03′′ W 

38°49′47′′ N 74°28′44′′ W 

38°44′26′′ N 74°28′09′′ W 

38°21′04′′ N 74°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°31′23′′ N 74°35′39′′ W 

38°32′23′′ N 74°32′01′′ W 

38°19′43′′ N 74°30′38′′ W 

38°28′48′′ N 74°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°31′31′′ N 74°55′28′′ W 

37°53′08′′ N 74°56′45′′ W 

36°59′41′′ N 75°36′05′′ W 

37°01′39′′ N 75°47′38′′ W 

38°01′17′′ N 75°04′15′′ W 

38°42′50′′ N 74°58′56′′ W 

38°37′15′′ N 74°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 

°T/223 °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°16′48′′ N 75°23′35′′ W 

38°04′32′′ N 74°34′56′′ W 

37°58′60′′ N 74°25′56′′ W 

37°08′44′′ N 75°17′17′′ W 

37°08′43′′ N 75°29′30′′ W 

The proposed Chesapeake Bay 

approach Connector-North Fairway 

would be approximately 48 NM long in 

an approximate direction of 090 °T/270 

°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°08′43′′ N 075°29′30′′ W 

37°08′50′′ N 74°32′14′′ W 

36°59′49′′ N 74°33′22′′ W 

36°59′42′′ N 075°27′31′′ W 

36°57′56′′ N 075°29′59′′ W 

36°49′18′′ N 075°29′56′′ W 

36°49′18′′ N 075°35′28′′ W 

36°59′41′′ N 075°36′05′′ W 

The proposed Chesapeake Bay 

approach Connector—South Fairway 

would be approximately 48 NM long in 

an approximate direction of 090 °T/270 

°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°49′18′′ N 75°35′28′′ W 

36°49′18′′ N 74°34′41′′ W 

36°40′20′′ N 74°35′49′′ W 

36°40′17′′ N 75°33′31′′ W 

36°43′51′′ N 75°36′43′′ W 

The proposed Hatteras to Chesapeake 

Bay Offshore Fairway would be 

approximately 103 NM long, in an 

approximate direction of 342 °T/162 °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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 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°06′32′′ N 74°58′03′′ W 

35°07′36′′ N 75°06′05′′ W 

35°59′33′′ N 75°06′58′′ W 

36°09′53′′ N 75°16′11′′ W 

36°21′49′′ N 75°26′54′′ W 

36°34′42′′ N 75°38′28′′ W 

36°41′58′′ N 75°41′36′′ W 

36°43′51′′ N 75°36′43′′ W 

36°25′19′′ N 75°20′05′′ W 

36°13′49′′ N 75°09′47′′ W 

36°01′44′′ N 74°59′01′′ W 

The proposed Hatteras to Chesapeake 

Bay Nearshore Fairway would be 

approximately 97 NM long, in an 

approximate direction of 342 °T/162 °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°09′05′′ N 75°17′23′′ W 

35°35′43′′ N 75°19′23′′ W 

36°35′18′′ N 75°43′45′′ W 

36°44′43′′ N 75°47′08′′ W 

TABLE 15—THE PROPOSED HATTERAS

TO CHESAPEAKE BAY NEARSHORE

FAIRWAY—Continued 

Latitude Longitude 

36°41′58′′ N 75°41′36′′ W 

36°34′42′′ N 75°38′28′′ W 

36°26′19′′ N 75°30′57′′ W 

35°37′03′′ N 75°10′53′′ W 

35°07′57′′ N 75°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°06′32′′ N 74°58′03′′ W 

34°08′12′′ N 76°13′25′′ W 

33°17′01′′ N 77°24′37′′ W 

31°45′60′′ N 79°54′60′′ W 

31°24′48′′ N 80°15′25′′ W 

31°15′38′′ N 80°21′14′′ W 

30°55′07′′ N 80°29′47′′ W 

28°40′16′′ N 80°06′15′′ W 

27°13′02′′ N 79°48′27′′ W 

27°11′28′′ N 79°58′17′′ W 

27°45′00′′ N 80°05′18′′ W 

27°23′53′′ N 80°02′26′′ W 

27°11′28′′ N 79°58′17′′ W 

27°10′12′′ N 80°03′04′′ W 

27°22′58′′ N 80°07′20′′ W 

27°44′21′′ N 80°10′14′′ W 

28°38′07′′ N 80°21′01′′ W 

30°56′24′′ N 80°45′09′′ W 

TABLE 16—THE PROPOSED ST. LUCIE

TO HATTERAS FAIRWAY—Continued 

Latitude Longitude 

31°22′43′′ N 80°34′10′′ W 

31°31′32′′ N 80°29′18′′ W 

31°56′27′′ N 80°05′11′′ W 

33°27′43′′ N 77°34′12′′ W 

34°18′07′′ N 76°23′59′′ W 

35°09′05′′ N 75°17′23′′ W 

The proposed Beaufort Inlet 

Connector Fairway would be 

approximately 23 NM long, in an 

approximate direction of 320 °T/140 °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°10′17′′ N 76°34′54′′ W 

34°34′09′′ N 76°43′24′′ W 

34°35′52′′ N 76°37′42′′ W 

34°17′00′′ N 76°25′32′′ W 

The proposed Cape Fear River 

Southeastern approach Connector 

Fairway would be approximately 17 NM 

long, in a direction of approximately 

300 °T/120 °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°28′07′′ N 78°08′24′′ W 

33°13′45′′ N 77°57′18′′ W 

33°06′41′′ N 78°08′60′′ W 

33°27′44′′ N 78°15′14′′ W 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
3600 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

The proposed Cape Fear River 

Southwestern approach Connector 

Fairway would be approximately 85 NM 

long, in a direction of approximately 

039 °T/219 °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°55′31′′ N 78°45′26′′ W 

32°30′42′′ N 79°29′19′′ W 

32°34′40′′ N 79°32′37′′ W 

32°59′13′′ N 78°49′35′′ W 

33°34′29′′ N 78°18′02′′ W 

33°28′20′′ N 78°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°42.92′ N 73°54.53′ W 

39°53.17′ N 73°53.35′ W 

39°57.63′ N 73°40.41′ W 

39°48.35′ N 73°38.28′ W 

39°42.92′ N 73°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°01.53′ N 72°58.88′ W 

39°55.23′ N 73°17.71′ W 

40°02.41′ N 73°26.55′ W 

40°09.02′ N 73°10.82′ W 

40°01.53′ N 72°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°53′10′′ N 73°53′21′′ W 

39°57′38′′ N 73°40′25′′ W 

39°48′21′′ N 73°38′17′′ W 

TABLE 22—PROPOSED BARNEGAT TO

AMBROSE PRECAUTIONARY AREA— 

Continued 

Latitude Longitude 

39°42′55′′ N 73°54′32′′ W 

TABLE 23—PROPOSED HUDSON CANYON TO AMBROSE PRECAUTIONARY

AREA

Latitude Longitude 

40°02′24′′ N 73°26′33′′ W 

40°09′01′′ N 73°10′49′′ W 

40°01′32′′ N 72°58′53′′ W 

39°55′14′′ N 73°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°49.80′ N 74°33.91′ W 

38°49.79′ N 74°28.74′ W 

38°44.44′ N 74°28.15′ W 

38°44.45′ N 74°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,’’ 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 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°46.79′ N, 

74°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°47.35′ N 74°34.5′ W 

38°47.35′ N 74°33.64′ W 

38°46.3′ N 74°33.53′ W 

38°46.3′ N 74°34.45′ W 

TABLE 26—PROPOSED SEPARATION

ZONE FOR THE OFF DELAWARE BAY: 

EASTERN APPROACH—PART 2 

Latitude Longitude 

38°47.34′ N 74°28.47′ W 

38°47.29′ N 74°12.98′ W 

38°46.25′ N 74°12.98′ W 

38°46.29′ N 74°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°49.80′ N 74°34.60′ W 

38°49.80′ N 74°33.91′ W 

TABLE 28—PROPOSED TRAFFIC LANE

FOR WESTBOUND TRAFFIC FOR THE

OFF DELAWARE BAY: EASTERN APPROACH—PART 2 

Latitude Longitude 

38°49.79′ N 74°28.74′ W 

TABLE 28—PROPOSED TRAFFIC LANE

FOR WESTBOUND TRAFFIC FOR THE

OFF DELAWARE BAY: EASTERN APPROACH—PART 2—Continued 

Latitude Longitude 

38°49.77′ N 74°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°44.45′ N 74°34.35′ W 

38°44.45′ N 74°33.32′ W 

TABLE 30—PROPOSED TRAFFIC LANE

FOR EASTBOUND TRAFFIC FOR THE

OFF DELAWARE BAY: EASTERN APPROACH—PART 2 

Latitude Longitude 

38°44.44′ N 74°28.15′ W 

38°44.43′ N 74°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°27.00′ N 74°42.30′ W 

38°27.60′ N 74°41.30′ W 

38°18.41′ N 74°32.53′ W 

38°17.63′ N 74°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°28.80′ N 74°39.30′ W 

38°19.72′ N 74°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°15.80′ N 74°34.75′ W 

38°25.78′ N 74°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°10.02′ N, 

74°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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
3602 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

20The 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-bidenmariners 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°42.80′ N, 74°58.90′ W; then 

southeasterly to 38°37.25′ N, 74°54.15′ 

W; then northeasterly to 38°48.89′ N, 

74°47.29′ W; then westerly to 38°48.31′ 

N, 74°55.39′ W; then westerly to 

38°47.50′ N, 75°01.80′ W; then northerly 

to 38°50.75′ N, 75°03.40′ W; then 

northeasterly to 38°51.27′ N, 75°02.83′ 

W; then northerly to 38°54.80′ N, 

75°01.60′ W; then westerly by an arc of 

6.7 nautical miles centered at 38°48.90′ 

N, 75°05.60′ W to 38°55.53′ N, 75°05.87′ 

W; then southwesterly to 38°54.00′ N, 

75°08.00′ W; then southerly to 38°46.60′ 

N, 75°03.55′ W; then southeasterly to 

38°42.80′ N, 74°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°58.25′ N, 75°48.44′ W; then 

easterly by an arc of 5 NM centered at 

36°59.06′ N, 75°42.28′ W to 36°59.27′ N, 

75°36.04′ W; then southerly to 36°47.20′ 

N, 75°35.35′ W; then westerly by an arc 

of 5 NM centered around 36°46.98′ N, 

075°41.58′ W to 36°48.21′ N, 075°47.61′ 

W; then northerly to 36°48.87′ N, 

075°47.42′ W; then northeasterly to 

36°50.33′ N, 075°46.29′ W; then 

northerly to 36°57.04′ N, 075°48.01′ W; 

then northwesterly to 36°57.94′ N, 

075°48.41′ W; then northerly to 

36°58.25′ N, 75°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°36.22′ N, 078°17.30′ W; then 

easterly by an arc of 5.2 NM centered at 

33°32.99′ N, 078°12.10′ W; to 33°32.75′ 

N, 078°05.99′ W; then westerly to 

33°32.75′ N, 078°09.66′ W; then 

northwesterly to 33°34.50′ N, 078°14.70′ 

W; then northwesterly to 33°36.22′ N, 

078°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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 3603 

administration-jumpstarts-offshore-wind-energyprojects-to-create-jobs/. Accessed June 08, 2023. 21 Ibid. 22 Data for table 34 in 2022 dollars from USA 

Trade® Online, https://usatrade.census.gov/ 

Monetary values. Last accessed May 24, 2023. 

23ACP, ‘‘Offshore Wind Market Report,’’ May 

2023, https://cleanpower.org/resources/offshorewind-market-report-2023/. Last accessed May 23, 

2023. 

24Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Lease 

and Grant Information. Available at: https://

www.boem.gov/renewable-energy/lease-and-grantinformation. Last accessed May 23, 2023. 

Administration also identified that 

achieving this 2030 goal would unlock 

a pathway to 110 GW of offshore wind 

energy generation by 2050.21

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. 

TABLE 34—AVERAGE VALUE OF GOODS PER DAY FLOWING THROUGH ATLANTIC PORTS

Port Daily value of goods 

(millions) 

Annual value of goods 

(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. 

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 × 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

No. Lease No. Project name State Capacity 

(MW) * Developer Size (acres) Closest fairway Distance (NM) 

1 ....... OCS–A 0482 ...... Garden State Offshore 

Energy.

DE .............. 1,249 NRG Energy, Inc. ........... 70,098 Off Delaware Bay to 

New Jersey.

∼1 to 2.

2 ....... OCS–A 0483 ...... Coastal Virginia Offshore 

Wind.

VA .............. 2,587 Dominion Energy Inc ..... 112,799 1. Chesapeake Bay

North.

2. Chesapeake Bay

South.

∼1. 

3 ....... OCS–A 0486 ...... Revolution Wind ............. MA, RI ........ 704 ;rsted, Eversource ........ 83,798 Barnegat to Narragansett ∼10. 

4 ....... OCS–A 0487 ...... Sunrise Wind .................. MA, RI ........ 924 ;rsted, Eversource ........ 109,952 Barnegat to Narragansett ∼5. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
3604 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

25https://www.boem.gov/renewable-energy/stateactivities/central-atlantic. Last accessed May 23, 

2023. 

26https://www.boem.gov/renewable-energy/stateactivities/maine/gulf-maine. Last accessed May 23, 

2023. 

TABLE 35—CURRENT OFFSHORE WIND ENERGY PROJECTS—Continued 

No. Lease No. Project name State Capacity 

(MW) * Developer Size (acres) Closest fairway Distance (NM) 

5 ....... OCS–A 0490 ...... US Wind ......................... MD .............. 1,079 U.S. Wind ....................... 79,707 Cape Charles to Delaware Bay.∼3. 

6 ....... OCS–A 0497 ...... Coastal Virginia Offshore 

Wind.

VA .............. 12 Dominion Energy Inc ..... 2,135 1. Chesapeake Bay 

North.

2. Chesapeake Bay 

South.

∼1 

∼3. 

7 ....... OCS–A 0498 ...... Ocean Wind 1 ................ NJ ............... 1,100 ;rsted ............................ 75,526 St. Lucie to New York .... ∼5 to 10. 

8 ....... OCS–A 0499 ...... Atlantic Shores South .... NJ ............... 1,510 EDF, Shell ...................... 102,123 1. New Jersey to New 

York.

2. St. Lucie to New York 

∼1 to 2. 

9 ....... OCS–A 0500 ...... Bay State Wind .............. MA, RI ........ 2,579 ;rsted ............................ 144,823 Nantucket to Ambrose ... ∼5 to 9. 

10 ..... OCS–A 0501 ...... Vineyard Wind 1 ............ MA, RI ........ 806 Avangrid Inc., CIP .......... 65,296 Not within 10 NM to any ∼10 to 35. 

11 ..... OCS–A 0506 ** .. Block Island Wind Farm RI ................ 30 ;rsted ............................ 7,708 Right of Way Grant for 

Cables.

n/a. 

12 ..... OCS–A 0508 ...... Kitty Hawk ...................... NC .............. 3,500 Avangrid Inc. .................. 122,405 Hatteras to Chesapeake 

Bay.

∼1. 

13 ..... OCS–A 0512 ...... Empire Wind .................. NY .............. 2,076 BP, Equinor Asa ............ 79,350 Nantucket to Ambrose ... ∼5. 

14 ..... OCS–A 0517 ...... South Fork Wind ............ MA, RI ........ 132 ;rsted, Eversource ........ 13,700 Barnegat to Narragansett ∼10. 

15 ..... OCS–A 0519 ...... Skipjack .......................... DE .............. 966 ;rsted ............................ 26,332 Off Delaware Bay to 

New Jersey.

∼2 to 3. 

16 ..... OCS–A 0520 ...... Beacon Wind .................. MA, RI ........ 1,230 BP, Equinor Asa ............ 128,811 Nantucket to Ambrose ... ∼6. 

17 ..... OCS–A 0521 ...... Mayflower Wind ............. MA, RI ........ 1,204 EDP Renewables, Engie, 

Shell.

127,388 Nantucket to Ambrose ... ∼5. 

18 ..... OCS–A 0522 ...... Vineyard Northeast ........ MA, RI ........ 2,358 Avangrid Inc., CIP .......... 132,370 Nantucket to Ambrose ... ∼4. 

19 ..... OCS–A 0532 ...... Ocean Wind 2 ................ NJ ............... 1,148 ;rsted ............................ 84,955 1. New Jersey to New 

York.

2. Off Delaware Bay to 

New Jersey.

∼1. 

20 ..... OCS–A 0534 ...... New England Wind ........ MA, RI ........ 2,036 Avangrid Inc. .................. 101,590 Not within 10 NM to any ∼10 to 30. 

21 ..... OCS–A 0537 ...... Bluepoint Wind ............... NY .............. 1,700 EDP, Engie North America.71,522 1. Hudson Canyon to 

Ambrose.

2. Hudson Canyon to 

Ambrose.

∼1. 

22 ..... OCS–A 0538 ...... Attentive Energy ............. NJ ............... 3,000 TotalEnergies ................. 84,332 Hudson Canyon to Ambrose.∼1. 

23 ..... OCS–A 0539 ...... Hudson South—C .......... NJ ............... 3,000 RWE, National Grid plc .. 125,964 1. Hudson Canyon to 

Ambrose.

2. St. Lucie to New York 

∼7. 

24 ..... OCS–A 0541 ...... Hudson South—E .......... NJ ............... 1,414 EDF Group, Shell ........... 79,351 St. Lucie to New York .... ∼1. 

25 ..... OCS–A 0542 ...... Hudson South—F .......... NJ ............... 2,000 GE Renewable Energy .. 83,976 St. Lucie to New York .... ∼3. 

26 ..... OCS–A 0544 ...... Hudson North ................. NY .............. 767 CIP ................................. 43,056 Barnegat to Narragansett ∼1. 

27 ..... OCS–A 0545 ...... Wilmington West ............ NC .............. 1,000 TotalEnergies ................. 54,937 Cape Fear Southeastern ∼2. 

28 ..... OCS–A 0546 ...... Wilmington East ............. NC .............. 1,600 Duke Energy Corp ......... 55,154 St. Lucie to Hatteras ...... ∼2. 

29 ..... OCS–A 0549 ...... Atlantic Shores North ..... NJ ............... 1,446 EDF Group, Shell ........... 81,129 1. New Jersey to New 

York.

2. St. Lucie to New York 

∼1 to 2. 

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

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 × 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 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 welldefined 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 (§ 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 § 585.102(a)(7), BOEM must also 

‘‘[protect] the rights of other authorized 

users of the OCS,’’ and § 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
3606 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

27Rules 18 & 19 of Convention of the 

International Regulation for Preventing Collision at 

Sea, 1972. 

28Andrew 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 Ju ̈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. 

30European 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. 

31National 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. 

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. 

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

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. 

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. 

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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 3607 

33BOEM Lease and Grant Information web page. 

Available at https://www.boem.gov/renewableenergy/lease-and-grant-information. Last accessed 

May 23, 2023 

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 longterm 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
3608 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

34Reference USA U.S. Business Research, https:// 

www.referenceusagov.com/. Last accessed May 23, 

2023. 

35U.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. 

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. 

TABLE 36—NUMBER OF SMALL ENTITIES AFFECTED BY THIS PROPOSED RULE

NAICS code NAICS code and 

industry type 

Size 

standard type 

SBA size 

standard 

Number of 

entities 

Number of 

small entities 

213112 ...... Support Activities for Oil and Gas Operations ........ Revenue (Millions) ......... $47.0 2 0 

221115 ...... Wind Electric Power Generation ............................. Employees ...................... 1,150 2 0 

221121 ...... Electric Bulk Power Transmission and Control ...... Employees ...................... 950 1 0 

221122 ...... Electrical Power Distribution ................................... Employees ...................... 1,100 5 0 

238220 ...... Plumbing, Heating, and Air Conditioning Contractors.Revenue (Millions) ......... $19.0 1 0 

333611 ...... Turbine & turbine Generator Set Unit Manufacturing.Employees ...................... 1,500 1 0 

541715 ...... Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences (except Nanotechnology and Biotechnology).Employees ...................... 1,000 1 0 

525910 ...... Open End Investment Funds .................................. Revenue (Millions) ......... $40.0 1 0 

811310 ...... Commercial and Industrial Machinery and Equipment (except Automotive and Electronic) Repair 

and Maintenance.

Revenue (Millions) ......... $12.5 1 0 

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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
3610 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

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 

■ 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). 

■ 2. In § 166.500, revise paragraph (b) to 

read as follows: 

§ 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 § 166.500(b)(1) 

Latitude Longitude 

40°29′15′′ N 73°32′03′′ W 

40°31′02′′ N 73°35′17′′ W 

40°30′15′′ N 73°41′25′′ W 

40°31′33′′ N 73°42′23′′ W 

40°35′59′′ N 73°11′39′′ W 

41°06′31′′ N 71°30′24′′ W 

41°02′51′′ N 71°29′06′′ W 

40°48′05′′ N 71°59′27′′ W 

40°32′38′′ N 72°50′50′′ W 

40°32′12′′ N 73°11′28′′ W 

Datum: WGS 84 

(2) Nantucket to Ambrose Fairway. 

The area enclosed by rhumb lines, 

joining points at: 

TABLE 1 TO § 166.500(b)(2) 

Latitude Longitude 

40°32′20′′ N 73°04′55′′ W 

40°30′59′′ N 72°57′39′′ W 

40°34′07′′ N 70°19′26′′ W 

40°35′41′′ N 70°14′02′′ W 

40°22′38′′ N 70°13′34′′ W 

40°24′07′′ N 70°19′03′′ W 

40°20′57′′ N 72°58′22′′ W 

40°19′20′′ N 73°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 § 166.500(b)(3) 

Latitude Longitude 

40°08′25′′ N 72°38′18′′ W 

40°08′25′′ N 72°27′34′′ W 

40°08′25′′ N 72°00′00′′ W 

40°03′25′′ N 72°00′00′′ W 

40°03′25′′ N 72°27′34′′ W 

40°03′25′′ N 72°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 § 166.500(b)(4) 

Latitude Longitude 

40°01′32′′ N 72°58′53′′ W 

40°00′20′′ N 72°56′59′′ W 

39°42′19′′ N 72°34′32′′ W 

39°24′19′′ N 72°12′12′′ W 

39°06′19′′ N 71°49′57′′ W 

38°48′19′′ N 71°27′49′′ W 

38°30′19′′ N 71°05′45′′ W 

38°12′19′′ N 70°43′48′′ W 

37°54′40′′ N 70°22′22′′ W 

37°45′55′′ N 70°38′53′′ W 

38°01′33′′ N 70°57′56′′ W 

38°19′33′′ N 71°19′57′′ W 

38°37′33′′ N 71°42′04′′ W 

38°55′33′′ N 72°04′17′′ W 

39°13′33′′ N 72°26′35′′ W 

39°31′33′′ N 72°48′59′′ W 

39°49′33′′ N 73°11′28′′ W 

39°55′14′′ N 73°17′43′′ W 

Datum: WGS 84 

(5) Barnegat to Narragansett Fairway. 

The area enclosed by rhumb lines, 

joining points at: 

TABLE 1 TO § 166.500(b)(5) 

Latitude Longitude 

39°53′10′′ N 73°53′21′′ W 

39°57′38′′ N 73°40′25′′ W 

40°02′24′′ N 73°26′33′′ W 

40°09′01′′ N 73°10′49′′ W 

40°09′37′′ N 73°06′52′′ W 

40°48′05′′ N 71°59′27′′ W 

41°02′51′′ N 71°29′06′′ W 

41°02′11′′ N 71°18′13′′ W 

40°20′32′′ N 72°02′02′′ W 

40°01′32′′ N 72°58′53′′ W 

39°55′14′′ N 73°17′43′′ W 

39°48′21′′ N 73°38′17′′ W 

39°42′55′′ N 73°54′32′′ W 

Datum: WGS 84 

(6) New Jersey to New York Connector 

Fairway. The area enclosed by rhumb 

lines, joining points at: 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 3611 

TABLE 1 TO § 166.500(b)(6) 

Latitude Longitude 

38°48′54′′ N 74°47′17′′ W 

38°48′19′′ N 74°55′24′′ W 

39°29′42′′ N 74°12′28′′ W 

39°47′36′′ N 74°00′38′′ W 

40°22′17′′ N 73°55′58′′ W 

40°20′30′′ N 73°49′38′′ W 

39°52′58′′ N 73°53′22′′ W 

39°42′55′′ N 73°54′32′′ W 

39°41′42′′ N 73°58′10′′ W 

39°35′15′′ N 74°02′59′′ W 

39°27′30′′ N 74°08′07′′ W 

39°06′13′′ N 74°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 § 166.500(b)(7) 

Latitude Longitude 

36°17′51′′ N 74°26′02′′ W 

35°17′41′′ N 74°40′46′′ W 

34°33′21′′ N 74°52′32′′ W 

33°57′08′′ N 75°20′14′′ W 

32°49′16′′ N 76°06′42′′ W 

31°37′49′′ N 76°51′25′′ W 

29°36′06′′ N 78°06′19′′ W 

27°46′56′′ N 79°12′18′′ W 

27°51′00′′ N 79°21′20′′ W 

29°40′20′′ N 78°15′25′′ W 

31°42′04′′ N 77°00′43′′ W 

32°53′37′′ N 76°16′03′′ W 

34°01′48′′ N 75°29′30′′ W 

34°36′50′′ N 75°02′46′′ W 

35°19′31′′ N 74°51′32′′ W 

36°07′03′′ N 74°39′60′′ W 

37°59′00′′ N 74°25′56′′ W 

38°18′34′′ N 74°18′21′′ W 

38°41′08′′ N 74°09′36′′ W 

38°52′59′′ N 74°05′01′′ W 

39°15′49′′ N 73°56′09′′ W 

39°42′55′′ N 73°54′32′′ W 

39°45′42′′ N 73°46′12′′ W 

39°48′21′′ N 73°38′17′′ W 

39°45′42′′ N 73°37′40′′ W 

39°11′38′′ N 73°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 § 166.500(b)(8) 

Latitude Longitude 

38°19′43′′ N 74°30′38′′ W 

38°44′27′′ N 74°33′19′′ W 

38°49′48′′ N 74°33′54′′ W 

39°01′14′′ N 74°35′09′′ W 

39°06′13′′ N 74°30′01′′ W 

39°01′41′′ N 74°30′03′′ W 

38°49′47′′ N 74°28′44′′ W 

38°44′26′′ N 74°28′09′′ W 

38°21′04′′ N 74°25′35′′ W 

Datum: WGS 84 

(9) Delaware Bay Fairway Anchorage. 

The area enclosed by rhumb lines, 

joining points at: 

TABLE 1 TO § 166.500(b)(9) 

Latitude Longitude 

38°31′23′′ N 74°35′39′′ W 

38°32′23′′ N 74°32′01′′ W 

38°19′43′′ N 74°30′38′′ W 

38°28′48′′ N 74°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 § 166.500(b)(10) 

Latitude Longitude 

38°31′31′′ N 74°55′28′′ W 

37°53′08′′ N 74°56′45′′ W 

36°59′41′′ N 75°36′05′′ W 

37°01′39′′ N 75°47′38′′ W 

38°01′17′′ N 75°04′15′′ W 

38°42′50′′ N 74°58′56′′ W 

38°37′15′′ N 74°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 § 166.500(b)(11) 

Latitude Longitude 

37°16′48′′ N 75°23′35′′ W 

38°04′32′′ N 74°34′56′′ W 

37°58′60′′ N 74°25′56′′ W 

37°08′44′′ N 75°17′17′′ W 

37°08′43′′ N 75°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 § 166.500(b)(12) 

Latitude Longitude 

37°08′43′′ N 075°29′30′′ W 

37°08′50′′ N 74°32′14′′ W 

36°59′49′′ N 74°33′22′′ W 

36°59′42′′ N 075°27′31′′ W 

36°57′56′′ N 075°29′59′′ W 

36°49′18′′ N 075°29′56′′ W 

36°49′18′′ N 075°35′28′′ W 

36°59′41′′ N 075°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 § 166.500(b)(13) 

Latitude Longitude 

36°49′18′′ N 75°35′28′′ W 

36°49′18′′ N 74°34′41′′ W 

36°40′21′′ N 74°35′49′′ W 

36°40′17′′ N 75°33′31′′ W 

36°43′51′′ N 75°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 § 166.500(b)(14) 

Latitude Longitude 

35°06′32′′ N 74°58′03′′ W 

35°07′36′′ N 75°06′05′′ W 

35°59′33′′ N 75°06′58′′ W 

36°09′53′′ N 75°16′11′′ W 

36°21′49′′ N 75°26′54′′ W 

36°34′42′′ N 75°38′28′′ W 

36°41′58′′ N 75°41′36′′ W 

36°43′51′′ N 75°36′43′′ W 

36°25′19′′ N 75°20′05′′ W 

36°13′49′′ N 75°09′47′′ W 

36°01′44′′ N 74°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 § 166.500(b)(15) 

Latitude Longitude 

35°09′05′′ N 75°17′23′′ W 

35°35′43′′ N 75°19′23′′ W 

36°35′18′′ N 75°43′45′′ W 

36°44′43′′ N 75°47′08′′ W 

36°41′58′′ N 75°41′36′′ W 

36°34′42′′ N 75°38′28′′ W 

36°26′19′′ N 75°30′57′′ W 

35°37′03′′ N 75°10′53′′ W 

35°07′57′′ N 75°08′45′′ W 

Datum: WGS 84 

(16) St. Lucie to Hatteras Fairway. The 

area enclosed by rhumb lines, joining 

points at: 

TABLE 1 TO § 166.500(b)(16) 

Latitude Longitude 

35°06′32′′ N 74°58′03′′ W 

34°08′12′′ N 76°13′25′′ W 

33°17′01′′ N 77°24′37′′ W 

31°45′60′′ N 79°54′60′′ W 

31°24′48′′ N 80°15′25′′ W 

31°15′38′′ N 80°21′14′′ W 

30°55′07′′ N 80°29′47′′ W 

28°40′16′′ N 80°06′15′′ W 

27°13′02′′ N 79°48′27′′ W 

27°11′28′′ N 79°58′17′′ W 

27°45′00′′ N 80°05′18′′ W 

27°23′53′′ N 80°02′26′′ W 

27°11′28′′ N 79°58′17′′ W 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
3612 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 1 TO § 166.500(b)(16)— 

Continued 

Latitude Longitude 

27°10′12′′ N 80°03′04′′ W 

27°22′58′′ N 80°07′20′′ W 

27°44′21′′ N 80°10′14′′ W 

28°38′07′′ N 80°21′01′′ W 

30°56′24′′ N 80°45′09′′ W 

31°22′43′′ N 80°34′10′′ W 

31°31′32′′ N 80°29′18′′ W 

31°56′27′′ N 80°05′11′′ W 

33°27′43′′ N 77°34′12′′ W 

34°18′07′′ N 76°23′59′′ W 

35°09′05′′ N 75°17′23′′ W 

Datum: WGS 84 

(17) Beaufort Inlet Connector Fairway. 

The area enclosed by rhumb lines, 

joining points at: 

TABLE 1 TO § 166.500(b)(17) 

Latitude Longitude 

34°10′17′′ N 76°34′54′′ W 

34°34′09′′ N 76°43′24′′ W 

34°35′52′′ N 76°37′42′′ W 

34°17′00′′ N 76°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 § 166.500(b)(18) 

Latitude Longitude 

33°28′07′′ N 78°08′24′′ W 

33°13′45′′ N 77°57′18′′ W 

33°06′41′′ N 78°08′60′′ W 

33°27′44′′ N 78°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 § 166.500(b)(19) 

Latitude Longitude 

32°55′31′′ N 78°45′26′′ W 

32°30′42′′ N 79°29′19′′ W 

32°34′40′′ N 79°32′37′′ W 

32°59′13′′ N 78°49′35′′ W 

33°34′29′′ N 78°18′02′′ W 

33°28′20′′ N 78°16′04′′ W 

Datum: WGS 84 

PART 167—OFFSHORE TRAFFIC 

SEPARATION SCHEMES 

■ 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). 

■ 4. Amend § 167.151 by adding 

paragraphs (c) and (d) to read as follows. 

§ 167.151 Off New York: Precautionary 

areas. 

* * * * * 

(c) A precautionary area is established 

as follows: from 39°42.92′ N, 73°54.53′ 

W; then northerly to 39°53.17′ N, 

73°53.35′ W; then northeasterly to 

39°57.63′ N, 73°40.41′ W; then 

southeasterly to 39°48.35′ N, 73°38.28′ 

W; then southwesterly to 39°42.92′ N, 

73°54.53′ W. 

Datum: WGS 84 

(d) A precautionary area is established 

as follows: from 40°01.53′ N, 72°58.88′ 

W; then southwesterly to 39°55.23′ N, 

73°17.71′ W; then northwesterly to 

40°02.41′ N, 73°26.55′ W; then 

northeasterly to 40°09.02′ N, 73°10.82′ 

W; then southeasterly to 40°01.53′ N, 

72°58.88′ W. 

Datum: WGS 84 

■ 5. Revise § 167.171 to read as follows: 

§ 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 § 167.171(a) 

Latitude Longitude 

38°47.35′ N 74°34.5′ W 

38°47.35′ N 74°33.64′ W 

38°46.3′ N 74°33.53′ W 

38°46.3′ N 74°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 § 167.171(b) 

Latitude Longitude 

38°49.80′ N 74°34.60′ W 

38°49.80′ N 74°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 § 167.171(c) 

Latitude Longitude 

38°44.45′ N 74°33.32’ W 

38°44.45′ N 74°34.35′ W 

Datum: WGS 84 

(d) A separation zone is established 

bound by a line connecting the 

following geographic positions: 

TABLE 1 TO § 167.171(d) 

Latitude Longitude 

38°47.34′ N 74°28.47′ W 

38°47.29′ N 74°12.98′ W 

38°46.25′ N 74°12.98′ W 

38°46.29′ N 74°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 § 167.171(e) 

Latitude Longitude 

38°49.79′ N 74°28.74′ W 

38°49.77′ N 74°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 § 167.171(f) 

Latitude Longitude 

38°44.44′ N 74°28.15′ W 

38°44.43′ N 74°12.55′ W 

Datum: WGS 84 

■ 6. Revise § 167.172 to read as follows: 

§ 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 § 167.172(a) 

Latitude Longitude 

38°27.00′ N 74°42.30′ W 

38°27.60′ N 74°41.30′ W 

38°18.41′ N 74°32.53′ W 

38°17.63′ N 74°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 § 167.172(b) 

Latitude Longitude 

38°28.80′ N 74°39.30′ W 

38°19.72′ N 74°30.63′ W 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 13 / Friday, January 19, 2024 / Proposed Rules 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 § 167.172(c) 

Latitude Longitude 

38°15.80′ N 74°34.75′ W 

38°25.78′ N 74°44.28′ W 

Datum: WGS 84 

■ 7. Revise § 167.174 and its section 

heading to read as follows: 

§ 167.174 Off Delaware Bay: Precautionary 

areas. 

(a) A precautionary area is established 

as follows: from 38°42.80′ N, 74°58.90′ 

W; then southeasterly to 38°37.25′ N, 

74°54.15′ W; then northeasterly to 

38°48.89′ N, 74°47.29′ W; then westerly 

to 38°48.31′ N, 74°55.39′ W; then 

westerly to 38°47.50′ N, 75°01.80′ W; 

then northerly to 38°50.75′ N, 75°03.40′ 

W; then northeasterly to 38°51.27′ N, 

75°02.83′ W; then northerly to 38°54.80′ 

N, 75°01.60′ W; then westerly by an arc 

of 6.7 nautical miles centered at 

38°48.90′ N, 75°05.60′ W to 38°55.53′ N, 

75°05.87′ W; then southwesterly to 

38°54.00′ N, 75°08.00′ W; then southerly 

to 38°46.60′ N, 75°03.55′ W; then 

southeasterly to 38°42.80′ N, 74°58.90′ 

W. 

Datum: WGS 84. 

(b) A precautionary area is established 

as follows: from 38°49.80′ N, 74°33.91′ 

W; then easterly to 38°49.79′ N, 

74°28.74′ W; then southerly to 38°44.44′ 

N, 74°28.15′ W; then westerly to 

38°44.45′ N, 74°33.32′ W; then northerly 

to 38°49.80′ N, 74°33.91′ W. 

Datum: WGS 84. 

(c) A precautionary area is established 

with a radius of 5 nautical miles 

centered upon geographical position 

38°46.79′ N, 74°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°10.02′ N, 74°25.34′ W, the areas 

within the separation zones, traffic 

lanes, and fairways excluded. 

Datum: WGS 84. 

§ 167.200 [Amended] 

■ 8. Amend § 167.200 paragraph (a) by: 

■ a. After the text ‘‘three parts:’’, 

removing the word ‘‘a’’ and adding, in 

its place, the word ‘‘two’’; 

■ b. Removing the word ‘‘Area’’ and 

adding, in its place, the word ‘‘Areas’’; 

and 

■ c. After the text ‘‘167.202,’’, adding 

the text ‘‘and’’. 

■ 9. Amend § 167.201 by: 

■ a. Redesignating the introductory text 

as paragraph (a); 

■ b. Adding a title to Table 1 to 

§ 167.201(a); and 

■ c. Adding paragraph (b). 

The additions read as follows: 

§ 167.201 In the approaches to 

Chesapeake Bay: Precautionary areas. 

(a) * * * 

TABLE 1 TO § 167.201(a) 

* * * * * 

(b) A precautionary area is established 

as follows: from 36°58.25′ N, 75°48.44′ 

W; then easterly by an arc of 5 nautical 

miles centered at 36°59.06′ N, 75°42.28′ 

W to 36°59.27′ N, 75°36.04′ W; then 

southerly to 36°47.20′ N, 75°35.35′ W; 

then westerly by an arc of 5 nautical 

miles centered around 36°46.98′ N, 

075°41.58′ W to 36°48.21′ N, 075°47.61′ 

W; then northerly to 36°48.87′ N, 

075°47.42′ W; then northeasterly to 

36°50.33′ N, 075°46.29′ W; then 

northerly to 36°57.04′ N, 075°48.01′ W; 

then northwesterly to 36°57.94′ N, 

075°48.41′ W; then northerly to 

36°58.25′ N, 75°48.44′ W. 

Datum: WGS 849. 

■ 10. Amend § 167.251 by: 

■ a. Redesignating the introductory text 

as paragraph (a); and 

■ b. Adding paragraph (b) to read as 

follows: 

§ 167.251 In the approaches to the Cape 

Fear River: Precautionary area. 

* * * * * 

(b) A precautionary area is established 

as follows: from 33°36.22′ N, 078°17.30′ 

W; then easterly by an arc of 5.2 

nautical miles centered at 33°32.99′ N, 

078°12.10′ W; to 33°32.75′ N, 078°05.99′ 

W; then westerly to 33°32.75′ N, 

078°09.66′ W; then northwesterly to 

33°34.50′ N, 078°14.70′ W; then 

northwesterly to 33°36.22′ N, 078°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 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2021–0691; FRL–11644– 

01–R4] 

Air Plan Approval; KY; 2015 8-Hour 

Ozone Nonattainment New Source 

Review Permit Program Requirements 

and Rule Revision for Jefferson 

County 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a 

revision to the Jefferson County portion 

of the Kentucky State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) submitted by the 

Commonwealth of Kentucky through 

the Kentucky Energy and Environment 

Cabinet (Cabinet) on June 13, 2022. The 

changes were submitted by the Cabinet 

on behalf of the Louisville Metro Air 

Pollution Control District (District, also 

referred to herein as Jefferson County). 

EPA is proposing to approve changes to 

the District’s rules on the construction 

or modification of major stationary 

sources that are located within 

nonattainment areas or that have 

emissions impacting nonattainment 

areas. EPA also is proposing to approve 

the certification submitted by Kentucky 

on behalf of the District that the new 

version of the Nonattainment New 

Source Review (NNSR) permitting 

regulations proposed for incorporation 

into the Jefferson County portion of the 

Kentucky SIP meets the NNSR 

nonattainment planning requirements 

for the 2015 8-hour ozone National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS). The certification covers the 

Jefferson County portion of the 

Louisville, Kentucky-Indiana multi-state 

nonattainment area for the 2015 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. This action is proposed 

pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA or 

Act) and its implementing regulations. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before February 20, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2021–0691 at 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 

EPA may publish any comment received 

to its public docket. Do not submit 

electronically any information you 

consider to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Multimedia submissions (audio, video, 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1