
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 64 (Wednesday, April 5, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 16510-16512]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-06738]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 167

[USCG-2011-0351]


Port Access Route Study: The Atlantic Coast From Maine to Florida

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notification.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard published a document on March 14, 2016, that 
announced the availability of the final report issued by the Atlantic 
Coast Port Access Route Study (ACPARS) workgroup. In addition, the 
Coast Guard requested comments concerning the final report. After a 
review of the comments received, the Coast Guard has determined that it 
is not necessary to revise the final report, and therefore considers it 
to be complete as published.

DATES: April 5, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this 
notification, contact George Detweiler, Coast Guard, telephone (202) 
372-1566 or email George.H.Detweiler@uscg.mil.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

[[Page 16511]]

    Background and Purpose. The Coast Guard commenced its work on the 
Atlantic Coast Port Access Route Study by chartering a workgroup (WG) 
on May 11, 2011. The Coast Guard published the WG's Interim Report in 
the Federal Register (77 FR 55781; Sep. 11, 2012), which provided a 
status of efforts up to that date. Subsequently, the Coast Guard 
published a notification in the Federal Register (81 FR 13307; Mar. 14, 
2016) that announced the availability of the final report issued by the 
ACPARS WG. This document discusses the comments received and provides 
the Coast Guard's response to those comments. The final report is 
available on the Federal Register docket and also on the ACPARS Web 
site at www.uscg.mil/lantarea/acpars.

Discussion of Comments

    Comments were submitted by representatives of the maritime 
community, wind energy developers, non-government organizations, 
Federal and State government agencies, academic institutions and 
private citizens.
    Topics covered by the comments included the Coast Guard's role and 
relationship with the Department of Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy 
Management (BOEM), the Coast Guard-developed Marine Planning Guidelines 
and navigation corridors, protection of right whales and continued 
public outreach.

Coast Guard Cooperation With Stakeholders and the Marine Planning 
Process

    Some commenters urged the Coast Guard to coordinate and consult 
more closely with the other agencies associated with the development of 
offshore wind, particularly the BOEM to finalize the ACPARS report, and 
to utilize the Regional Planning Bodies to obtain broad feedback in 
evaluating navigation safety issues. We generally agree with these 
comments, but must state that throughout the ACPARS process, we have 
worked closely with BOEM in conducting this study and developing the 
final report. Additionally, broad stakeholder consultation must still 
be conducted on a case-by-case basis for each particular project 
proposed, as each will present unique circumstances and navigational 
risks.
    The Coast Guard has participated and will continue to participate 
in a lead permitting agency's National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 
process as a subject matter expert for navigation safety, maritime 
security, maritime mobility (management of maritime traffic, commerce, 
and navigation), national defense, and protection of the marine 
environment. In the case of wind farms on the Outer Continental Shelf 
(OCS), BOEM is the NEPA lead permitting agency and is responsible for 
the evaluation of environmental impacts and preparation of associated 
environmental documentation. BOEM and the Coast Guard have entered into 
a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) to identify their respective roles and 
responsibilities as members of BOEM/State Renewable Energy Task Forces 
for Wind Energy Area (WEA) identification, the issuance of leases and 
approval of Site Assessment Plans (SAPs), General Activity Plans (GAPs) 
and Construction and Operations Plans (COPs) for offshore renewable 
energy installations (OREIs). The Coast Guard will continue to work 
closely with BOEM in support of their Offshore Renewable Energy 
Program.

U.K. Marine Guidance Note 371 and Marine Planning Guidelines

    Many commenters stated the Coast Guard premised its Marine Planning 
Guidelines (MP Guidelines) on Marine Guidance Note (MGN) 371, a United 
Kingdom (U.K.) publication that had been superseded, and further 
commented that the Coast Guard had misapplied MGN 371 in developing the 
MP Guidelines. Additionally, some of these comments suggested that the 
Coast Guard should revise the MP Guidelines to be consistent with MGN 
543, which superseded MGN 371. As discussed below, we disagree with 
these comments.
    The United Kingdom's Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) published 
MGN 371 in August of 2008, well before we began the ACPARS process. 
Through the study, we determined that there was no single international 
standard for establishing safe navigation distances from permanent 
structures in the marine environment. With the development of European 
offshore wind farms, several different standards or guidelines evolved, 
and we considered each in development of the Coast Guard's MP 
Guidelines. In particular, we considered the guidance prepared by the 
Shipping Advisory Board Northsea, which was endorsed by the 
Confederation of European Shipmasters' Associations and used a 
formulaic approach that produces a 1.9 Nautical Mile (NM) distance from 
the side of a Traffic Separation Scheme (TSS) for a 400 meter vessel. 
The World Shipping Council recommended a minimum 2 NM safe distance 
from side of a Traffic Separation Scheme (TSS). We also considered the 
guidance prepared by the German Waterways and Shipping Directorate 
North West and North, which calls for a 2 NM setback to the side of a 
TSS, plus a 500 meter safety zone for each turbine. Last, we considered 
MGN 371, which throughout the study period reflected the current 
guidance of the U.K.'s MCA. Under MGN 371, the MCA considered a 
navigation buffer of 1 NM to 2 NM from the edge of a TSS to be medium 
risk, and greater than 2 NM to be low risk.
    In January of 2016, after our work on the ACPARS was complete but 
before we released our final report for comment, the MCA published MGN 
543, which superseded MGN 371. Through MGN 543, the MCA intended to 
simplify the Wind Farm Shipping Route Template (table, p. 13), which 
contained four columns and twelve defined distances associated with 
unique considerations (``Factors'') and degrees of risk ranging from 
very high to very low. The shipping route template in MGN 543 (p. 21) 
essentially consolidated the twelve safety distances to three, with 
less than 0.5 NM being ``intolerable'' and a range from 0.5 NM to 3.5 
NM being ``tolerable'' if risks have been mitigated to a point termed 
``as low as reasonably possible'' or ALARP. Last, the MGN 543 template 
considers distances beyond 3.5 NM to be ``broadly acceptable.''
    Although some commenters may view MGN 543's revised template to 
have relaxed the recommended safe distances in MGN 371, we do not 
agree. Through MGN 543, the MCA sought to both simplify the template, 
and also make clear that generally there is a range of possible safe 
setback distances, and that a particular distance for any given wind 
farm would be determined by the unique circumstances of the project, 
which must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
    Similarly, our MP Guidelines state that the Coast Guard will be a 
cooperating agency in the NEPA process wherein we will evaluate the 
Navigation Safety Risk Assessment unique to each proposed project, 
i.e., on a case-by-case basis. After consideration of several European 
guidelines, we determined that a 2 NM setback from the side of a TSS 
was the appropriate guidance for offshore wind farm developers. This 
distance is consistent with the MCA 371's demarcation for low risk, it 
is in the middle of MGN 543's range for ``tolerable if ALARP'' and also 
consistent with the other European guidance we considered. As such, we 
do not intend to revise the MP Guidelines at this time.

[[Page 16512]]

    It is important to note that the distances set forth in MGN 371, 
MNG 543 and our MP Guidelines are not standards, regulations or 
requirements of any type, but rather are guidance for developers to 
consider at the outset of a proposal. For example, both MGN 371 and MGN 
543 state ``[t]his Guidance Note, as the name implies, is intended for 
the guidance of developers and others.'' See p. 3 of both Notes. In 
similar language, the MP Guidelines states on p. 1 ``[t]hese guidelines 
are provided to assist offshore developers and marine planners with 
their evaluation of the navigational impacts of any projects with 
multiple permanent fixed structures.'' Furthermore, on p. 6 of the MP 
Guidelines, we state ``[t]hese recommendations are based on generic 
deep draft vessel maneuvering characteristics and are consistent with 
existing European guidelines.''
    As discussed above, the Coast Guard will evaluate each proposed 
project based upon the actual risks identified in the Navigation Safety 
Risk Assessment, and not by rigidly applying recommended distances from 
the MP Guidelines or any other similar guidance. Because our guidelines 
are neither regulations nor standards that must be applied, and because 
we view MGN 543 as a simplification of its predecessor, MGN 371, we do 
not believe it is necessary or prudent to revise our MP Guidelines at 
this time.

Navigation Corridors

    Various comments were received concerning navigation corridors. 
Some commenters said the navigation corridors were too large, or simply 
not necessary, whereas others said they were essential to preserve 
clear shipping lanes. Prior to the advent of offshore wind development, 
there was no need for a coordinated routing system along the entire 
Atlantic seaboard, and existing traffic separation schemes at the 
entrances to major ports were adequate to manage collision risks for 
commercial vessel traffic. As the potential for conflicting uses of the 
Atlantic Ocean has increased, the Coast Guard must evaluate options to 
reduce associated risks to navigation and the environment. The ACPARS 
identified the routes typically used by tug and barge traffic and deep 
draft ocean-going vessels. The identified navigation corridors in the 
final report simply reflect areas historically used by commercial 
vessels. The ACPARS report recommends that the navigation corridors 
should be considered during marine planning activities and incorporated 
into Regional Ocean Plans to ensure appropriate consideration is given 
to shipping early in the project siting process. Some commenters have 
also suggested the Coast Guard apply the data and recommendations from 
the ACPARS to the marine planning process, and we agree with those 
comments.
    The ACPARS report also recommended that the Coast Guard use the 
identified navigation corridors to establish shipping safety fairways 
(areas where permanent structures are not permitted) or other 
appropriate ships' routing measures. The Coast Guard is considering 
these recommendations, but has not yet determined if or how it may move 
forward on such routing measures. In the event the Coast Guard 
determines that shipping safety fairways or other routing measures must 
be further explored, it will engage all relevant stakeholders and 
ultimately commence a formal rulemaking process that will provide ample 
notice and opportunity for public and other stakeholder comment, and a 
thorough environmental review.

Protection of Right Whales

    The Coast Guard received comments suggesting that offshore 
navigation corridors for deep draft traffic could endanger North 
Atlantic right whales if the corridors divert vessel traffic around 
wind farms into areas where these endangered whales tend to migrate. 
Although the offshore navigation corridors identified simply reflect 
existing vessel traffic patterns already in use, the Coast Guard would 
consult with National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 
interagency partners and other stakeholders through the NEPA and marine 
planning processes as a necessary part of any action to formally 
establish routing measures associated with the ACPARS or particular 
wind farm proposals.

Continued Public Outreach

    Some commenters recommended that the Coast Guard continue outreach 
efforts with affected states and federal agencies, the marine shipping 
industry, the wind energy industry and the general public, which could 
include participation in stakeholder outreach activities, public 
meetings, workshops and industry meetings and conferences. The Coast 
Guard concurs with the recommendation and will continue its outreach 
program through the Regional Planning Bodies.

Summary

    For the foregoing reasons, the Coast Guard considers the ACPARS 
report to be complete and will not make changes to it at this time.
    This notification is issued under authority of 33 U.S.C. 1223(c) 
and 5 U.S.C. 552.

    Dated: March 31, 2017.
Michael D. Emerson,
Director, Marine Transportation Systems, U.S. Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. 2017-06738 Filed 4-4-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


